Tag: Nicea

Chapter 5: Councils

 Part 1: From Apostles to Apostates

Over the centuries many councils in many locations were called. Some were considered to be without authority or legitimacy and others were of an insufficient nature so as not to affect the entire Christian World. Only the first 8 conferences have been accepted generally as they established orthodoxy.

The views express in these councils, instead of bringing unity of thought and purpose, caused a war that festered and never, ever healed. Dethroning, anathematizing, beatings and killings could not impose one side’s doctrine on the other. Nor could they ever come to a common solution acceptable to both deeply entrenched sides. Their bitterness and rivalry are exposed in raw reality through the minutes of the Councils.

After personally reading a summary of the minutes of those councils beginning in 325 AD, at the Council of Nicaea that stretched over 1,500 years to the First General Council of the Vatican 1870, I can only express a feeling of sadness, loss and betrayal by those who had been entrusted with the stewardship of the Church of Jesus Christ following the death of the Apostles and the loss to the church of the Apostles’ inspired leadership. 

The following is a list of the first of those councils:

1st Nicea (325 AD)
– Resolve Christ’s divinity and Status
– Establish Common Creed, Settle Arien Controversy

1st Constantinople (381 AD)
– Refine Nicene creed
– Abolish Arianism
– Clarify Trinity (Three in One God Head)
– Define role of Holy Ghost

1st Ephesus (431 AD)
– Character and Nature of Christ
– Condemn Nestorians

2nd Ephesus (449 AD)
– Solve divisions over the 1 or 2 possible natures of Christ
– Flavian, supporter of two natures, was beaten and died.
-Pope Leo was anathematized along with most Eastern Bishops.
This entire Council was rejected and declared a “Robber Synod.”

Chalcedon (451 AD)
– To reverse the results of the 2nd Council of Ephesus
– Two natures of Christ accepted

2nd Constantinople (553 AD)
– Monophysite (One Nature of Christ) movement continued to split the Empire. Council condemned controversial writings which only resulted in a deeper split.

3rd Constantinople (680 AD)
– To settle arguments of Doctrine, ( I.E the nature of Christ.)

The Great Schism
– In 800 AD, Pope Leo 3rd is crowned Charlemagne, King of the Franks, as Emperor of Rome. This act cemented loyalty between Rome and the Franks, instead of the Byzantines. This split the Empire into two: the Roman Church (Franks) and the Church of Constantinople (Byzantines).  
– The schism became formal by 1054 AD under Pope Leo 4th.
– Byzantine and Roman Church Popes excommunicate each other. Each declared the other heretics.

Now we have two Churches, Roman Catholic in Rome and Eastern Orthodox in Africa.

During the seventh century, the Byzantine Empire split violently over the argument of the natures of Christ. Both East and West were severely weakened by constant external wars and violent internal religious strife. Both sides deemed their stand as absolute and non-negotiable. These religious wars did as much, if not more, to destroy the Roman Empire than any other major threat it faced. The worst and the best minds of its academics, the dim witted as well as the most devious of leaders, all tried but could not provide the solution.  

Humpty Dumpty sat on the wall
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall. 
All the Kings horses and all the King’s men
Couldn’t put Humpty together again.

Chapter 6: The Great Schism

 Part 1: From Apostles to Apostates

The Western interpretation regarding the two natures of Christ, carved in stone, prevailed in the Christian world in the end, but not because of its merits Both sides were wrong. They had based their conclusions on the single false doctrine derived from a miss-translation, “God Created everything from nothing”. (EX NEHILO) Genesis 1:1

However, there was an other equally dangerous threat that arose that no one was anticipating. It began in 605 AD and its founder was called Mohamed. The threat was Islam. By the time the Catholic Church of the Western Roman Empire were able to call for another vote of its orthodoxy of the two natures of Christ, the Muslims had over run the Christian Church in the East including Constantinople and there was no one left standing to oppose them.

It is hard to imagine that the Leaders of the Roman Empire who were constantly and completely occupied with the running of State Affairs during a period of perpetual military wars, would allow themselves to become so deeply involved in the affairs of a religious nature.

From the time of the first Council, Constantine was clever enough to have figured out that a people divided over their allegiance to their God would only be a short step away from becoming divided over their allegiance to their Emperor. His main concern was his Empire and anything that threatened that, threatened him. He called a council and selected Christianity to become the State religion. That put an end to the persecution of Christians. The second council he called was to establish a common creed that everyone could agree upon to avoid future divisions and disagreements. 

When Constantine built a New Rome in the East (Constantinople) it created many advantages but also exacerbated its one big disadvantage. You can shift a Capital relatively easily, but you cannot as easily shift a people’s loyalty. Rome had always been the center of the civilized world. There were many who felt it should stay that way. The Empire was slipping into chaos. With communications slow and unreliable, moving to a new, far away center of power was very challenging to say the least. However, if you could unite the people through their religion and have control over them as a result, the chances of survival of the Emperor would be multiplied many fold. To have power over a man’s life is a high level of control. To have power over a man’s religion means you have power over him even after he was dead. Now that is total control, and it was the kind of total control Constantine was desperate for.

The Chalcedon Creed was crafted to establish the doctrine of the two natures of Christ called in Greek, Dyophysite. The first nature being Divine, while the second being Human. According to such belief, it was the “man nature of Christ” that was born of Mary. She would be called  Christostokos:  giver of life to Christ’s body. However it was an unacceptable and impossible proposition. Such a concept did not take into account that she could not possibly bring life to a God, who already existed before she or for that matter all mankind had even been created. It must have been the “man nature of Christ” that was born to the woman called Mary. Likewise, it must have been the “man nature of Christ” that died on the cross because a God cannot die. When the “divine nature of Christ” retook the Body of Christ, he was resurrected as a God. Further, as God is pure intelligence surely he would have no need to have been born at all, or to require a resurrected physical body which was composed of lesser and opposite substance to himself. 

The opposing group was a called the Monophysites. They believed that Christ had only one nature and that nature was divine. This school of thought originated in the Eastern Christianity. They saw  Christ as a God who was Incarnate– born as a man. At the same time, he became a fusion of both man and God sometime later when he was adopted by God the Father and became his Son. Mary, as a woman, gave birth to him and is therefore deserving of the title Christostokos because she was the giver of life to God.

Nestorius was one of the Bishops with this view. We must not forget there were many other views and opinions. Arianism was still a problem. Arius, a Libyan and Priest from Egypt, was teaching that Christ the son, was a God also but that there was a time when only God existed. Therefore, the Son was not equal to the Father. This thought was not original with Arius but had been debated for decades before he was born. Nonetheless, the movement that he founded bore the name Arianism and was deemed by the Pope or senior Bishop of Rome to be heretical doctrine.

These issues may sound like micro-minor nitpicking to us today but at the time it was a black or white issue upon which everything hung. Attempting to put a creed together that appeased both opposing sides was impossible. Nonetheless, The Nicean Creed was a final attempt after much maneuvering through compromises, bickering and personal threats. It is understandable why many today dismiss this amazing Creed’s linguistic achievement as simply a smoke screen of political doublespeak. 

Comparison between Creed of 325 and Creed of 381 AD

The following table which indicates by square brackets the portions of the 325 text that were omitted or removed in 381 A.D. and uses italics to indicate what phrases, absent in the 325 text, were added in 381, juxtaposes the earlier (325 AD) and later (381 AD) forms of this Creed in the English translation given in Schaff’s work, Creeds of Christendom.

First Council of Nicea
(325) 		First Council of
Constantinople (381)
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all
things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;
By whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth];by whom all things were made;
Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man;
He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father;
From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.From thence he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.
And in the Holy Ghost.And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets.
We Believe In one holy catholic and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
[But those who say: There was a time when he was not and He was not before he was made;’ and ‘He was made out of nothing,’ or ‘He is of another substance’ or ‘essence,’ or ‘The Son of God is created,’ or changeable,’ or ‘alterable’— they are condemned by the holy Catholic and apostolic Church.]

We must remember that while these very fine, barely distinguishable differences, caused nonetheless, considerable trouble for the proud and influential participants of their day. They were not fringe radicals or eccentrics but scholars with credentials and reputations at stake. Others were Monks hardened by years of tortuous self-denial having achieved a mental fortitude that only comes from isolated solitude. Then there were the Bishops with large congregations and followers trying to influence the Ego-maniacal Emperors whose total political and religious powers allowed them to impose and enforce whatever they could be persuaded to believe.

Such were the main players in this very serious and dangerous game. They met, not to discover the nature of Christ, but to win. Each took to the conference a fanatical conviction of their own orthodoxy that was “poured and set in concrete.” Now, their agenda was to root out those who did not believe as they believed and pronounce their curses (anathemas) upon them. They were not willing to even compromise on the equally logical conclusions already reached by their opponents. Rather they simply asked, “Are you an orthodox believer or a heretic?” What did that mean? What was orthodox at one conference was heresy at the next. One had to be very astute and focused just to stay alive. The answer they gave could bring them a cherished appointment or cost them their head.

At each conference there were winners and losers. The winners however could never be assured their triumph at one conference would survive long enough to influence the next. The losers could be vilified, judged, condemned or beaten to death before the news reached their home supporters. In some cases, the judgments were reversed but that was of little use to those who had perished. Emperors died and were replaced by new ones. There were no guarantees as to where the new Emperor’s sympathies lay. The same was true for Popes. What the Emperor giveth to one Pope, another Emperor taketh away. Blessed be the names of the Emperor.

Although the Niacin Creed was accepted by all at the council while under the ever-watchful eye of Emperor Constantine, it was by no means a done deal. It still had to be implemented throughout the Empires, both East and West. But as soon as the members returned home, the bickering, squabbling and disagreements regarding both the words and the intents of the Creed, always began afresh. It continued to simmer and boil and smolder for decades.

Finally, another Council, 46 years later was called to meet at Constantinople. Again, the most important business was to refine the creed so as to make perfectly clear what was orthodoxy and what wasn’t. What would be deemed heretical and what deemed acceptable. As before, even this tinkering and rearranging did not “a meeting of minds” make.

Two additional councils were called at Ephesus to clarify the one nature verses the two natures problem. Unfortunately, the one nature or Arianism group were victorious this time and the representatives even got so carried away as to beat the Bishop of Constantinople, Flavian, so badly that he died of his injuries a few days later.

Incensed at the death of their Bishop, and at the outcome of the council’s actions, Pope Leo and Emperor Marcian, both supporting the two natures theory, called a fourth council to reverse all that had been done at Ephesus. Chalcedon was still considered a safe place for the moment. All areas were too dangerous due to the threat from the advances of the army of Attila the Hun, so it was decided to convene the conference there.

At Chalcedon in 451 A.D. then, with Marcian presiding and Leo leading, all conclusions reached, and all anathemas pronounced upon the opposing Bishops of the East at the former council at Ephesus, were reversed. It was labelled as a gangster Council and deleted from the list of council as non- existent. Those who were responsible were deposed as Bishops, exiled and anathematized. The new creed, the Chalcedon Creed was formulated and not only approved but made orthodoxy. Any deviant to this Creed would result in a charge of heresy which had now been raised to a crime equal to treason and thereby, punishable by death.

An English translation of the Chalcedonian Creed

“We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; co-substantial with us according to the manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the virgin Mary, the mother of God, according to the manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning have declared concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.”

Its purpose was:
1/ To exclude all those who still upheld the Monophonic theory of Arius or any other opposing view.
2/ To stop the destructive religious wars that were dividing the two Empires. 
3/ To bring the polarized and fractured Empire together. 

So much for the common creed which would bring peace and unite the Empire. What about the Biblical teachings of Christ? What about love, tolerance, good will to those that despise or use you? All that had been scrapped. The Hawks had won. The Church had lost. From hence forth, the decrees were to be backed up by sword.

By the fifth century, the knowledge that we are children of a Heavenly Father had been lost and this was the result of that loss. What greater example of the reliance on the spirit of the Holy Ghost to guide us could we have? Without that influence what other outcome could we have expected?

Everything that the convention at Chalcedon was expected to achieve, history reveals that it was denied. The Roman Empire imploded, with the Eastern Empire the first to go down. One half of the civilized Christian World was lost. Each side blamed the other. Eastern Christians thought it was God’s punishment against Rome because she had cast off the Eastern Empire through her heretical, compulsory teachings. They welcomed the Muslims and actually experienced greater freedom of religion under them than while under Roman rule.

When Rome fell, the survivors in the West thought it was a replay of the Fall of Jerusalem – God’s punishment because they did not rid themselves from the heretics of the east as they should have done. 

East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet. Neither in thought nor in correcting their faults, it appears.

The latest of God’s attempt to establish a Zion society had failed miserably. He had tried with the freed Israelite slaves under Moses. Again, he tried with Lehi in the Promised Land. And now with the successors of Peter in the Covenanted Land, he tried and again another failure.

God has been reduced to:
 1/ An abstract (having no material existence)
2/ Irrelevant (of no value)
3/ Incomprehensible (beyond understanding)
4/ Inconceivable (impossible to imagine)
5/ Inexplicable (impossible to explain)
This definition may have been a good excuse at the time when they were seeking conformity to avoid the church being extinguished. However, for the generation in which we live, the result has been a headlong rush to abandonment of all responsibility.

The latest of God’s attempt to establish a Zion society had failed miserably. He had tried with the freed Israelite slaves under Moses. Again, he tried with Lehi in the Promised Land. And now with the successors of Peter in the Covenanted Land, he tried and again another failure.

Today’s Christians have spiritually fallen asleep, so far as the “great division because of the two natures of God” are concerned. If you were to ask most Christians today about the one or two natures and which they accept, I would venture to predict they would say, “I don’t understand the question.” Or they may ask, “What difference does it make?” As far as religion goes, with its pained dark history, it has all now become totally irrelevant. 

God has been reduced to:
 1/ An abstract (having no material existence)
2/ Irrelevant (of no value)
3/ Incomprehensible (beyond understanding)
4/ Inconceivable (impossible to imagine)
5/ Inexplicable (impossible to explain)

This definition may have been a good excuse at the time when they were seeking conformity to avoid the church being extinguished. However, for the generation in which we live, the effect of an impotent God is obvious. We are led to blindly believe there are no long-term consequences for our actions. We suffer only if we are foolish enough to be caught.

In the midst of all this blind wandering and wanton behavior, has come a still, soft voice of reason, a musical note in a cacophony of chaos, heard only by those who are tuned to its pitch.

The soft voice of Jesus Christ can be felt more than heard. He is coming as planned and “Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess” his name (Romans 14: 11). God has restored the truth through Joseph Smith in these latter days. The struggle today is not between two untruths, but between ignorance and truth. Yet much like the days of ancient Rome, there will be a lot of challenges, cleansing, self-correcting and repenting before the night ends and the day dawn breaks.

The definition of ignorance is to “make fools out of madmen and madmen out of fools.” Truth restores knowledge and the truth is what ultimately really makes you free (John 8: 32), from both madmen and fools. 

Will we of the final dispensation be able to achieve what others in history could not? We are about to find out.