09-22-2008, 07:57 AM
Christina, what you are giving is the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. First, you take for granted that anyone who believes in Trinitarianism is a Westerner, and then conclude that no true Easterner would hold to such a doctrine. What you ignore is the record we have in the church fathers, who wrote for centuries before the Council of Nicaea took place, and before the Byzantine Empire even existed.
Constantine the Great moved the seat of the empire from Rome to Byzantium. Constantine did not make Christianity the official religion of the empire, this happened after his death. What Constantine did was give the Apostolic Church enough freedom to openly meet in council. The Council of Nicaea did not simply invent doctrine out of nothingness, as historical revisionists claim. The church fathers present, including eastern church fathers, merely articulated what the Church had taught from the beginning, in opposition to the heresy of Arius.
To think of Trinitarianism as a "Roman" doctrine, simply because it was articulated by a council that reaffirmed what the Church had always taught, is illogical. St. Athanasius of Alexandria was definitely not a Westerner. Do you know who that is? If not, then I don't know whether we can have real discussion on church history. The Assyrian Church of the East accepts the Council of Nicaea.
The Oriental Orthodox Church, which comprises the historical churches of India, Egypt, Syria, Ethiopia, Armenia, and Jerusalem, rejected the Council of Chalcedon which, by that time, had been conducted under imperial control. The fathers of my church rejected this council, as its doctrine appeared to support Nestorianism. They were quite willing to suffer the consequence of preserving their historic faith. Whether they were right or wrong, they rejected this council because it disagreed with what their churches had previously taught. If the Council of Nicaea disagreed with their historic teaching, they would have done the same there also.
As I've noted before, the Assyrian Church of the East represents a small minority of Eastern Christians. To claim that the Near and Far East isn't Eastern, and that Christian communities that have existed there from the beginning of the faith are somehow not Eastern, is absurd. If the best one can say about the ecumenical councils is what you may have read in the Da Vinci Code, then it's best we move on to a different topic. I do not mean to cause you harm or offense, but the claims you advocate are unsupported by early church history. Please don't think you can school me regarding church history, unless you're able to substantiate your claims. I mean no lack of charity in saying this.
Please read the following carefully, along with the verses of Scripture I've already provided:
Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 13 (A.D. 155).
"[T]he ever-truthful God, hast fore-ordained, hast revealed beforehand to me, and now hast fulfilled. Wherefore also I praise Thee for all things, I bless Thee, I glorify Thee, along with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, Thy beloved Son, with whom, to Thee, and the Holy Ghost, be glory both now and to all coming ages. Amen." Martyrdom of Polycarp 14 (A.D. 157).
"For God did not stand in need of these [beings], in order to the accomplishing of what He had Himself determined with Himself beforehand should be done, as if He did not possess His own hands. For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks, saying, 'Let Us make man after Our image and likeness;' He taking from Himself the substance of the creatures [formed], and the pattern of things made, and the type of all the adornments in the world." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4,20:1 (A.D. 180).
"And first, they taught us with one consent that God made all things out of nothing; for nothing was coequal with God: but He being His own place, and wanting nothing, and existing before the ages, willed to make man by whom He might be known; for him, therefore, He prepared the world. For he that is created is also needy; but he that is uncreated stands in need of nothing. God, then, having His own Word internal within His own bowels, begat Him, emitting Him along with His own wisdom before all things. He had this Word as a helper in the things that were created by Him, and by Him He made all things. He is called governing principle' (arche), because He rules, and is Lord of all things fashioned by Him. He, then, being Spirit of God, and governing principle, and wisdom, and power of the highest, came down upon the prophets, and through them spoke of the creation of the world and of all other things. For the prophets were not when the world came into existence, but the wisdom of God which was in Him, and His holy Word which was always present with Him. Wherefore He speaks thus by the prophet Solomon: When He prepared the heavens I was there, and when He appointed the foundations of the earth I was by Him as one brought up with Him.' And Moses, who lived many years before Solomon, or, rather, the Word of God by him as by an instrument, says, In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.'" Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus, II:10 (c. A.D. 181).
"In the course of time, then, the Father forsooth was born, and the Father suffered, God Himself, the Lord Almighty, whom in their preaching they declare to be Jesus Christ. We, however, as we indeed always have done and more especially since we have been better instructed by the Paraclete, who leads men indeed into all truth), believe that there is one only God, but under the following dispensation, or oikonomia, as it is called, that this one only God has also a Son, His Word, who proceeded from Himself, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made. Him we believe to have been sent by the Father into the Virgin, and to have been born of her--being both Man and God, the Son of Man and the Son of God, and to have been called by the name of Jesus Christ; we believe Him to have suffered, died, and been buried, according to the Scriptures, and, after He had been raised again by the Father and taken back to heaven, to be sitting at the right hand of the Father, and that He will come to judge the quick and the dead; who sent also from heaven from the Father, according to His own promise, the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost. That this rule of faith has come down to us from the beginning of the gospel, even before any of the older heretics, much more before Praxeas, a pretender of yesterday, will be apparent both from the lateness of date which marks all heresies, and also from the absolutely novel character of our new-fangled Praxeas." Tertullian, Against Praxeas, 2 (post A.D. 213).
"Bear always in mind that this is the rule of faith which I profess; by it I testify that the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and so will you know in what sense this is said. Now, observe, my assertion is that the Father is one, and the Son one, and the Spirit one, and that They are distinct from Each Other. This statement is taken in a wrong sense by every uneducated as well as every perversely disposed person, as if it predicated a diversity, in such a sense as to imply a separation among the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit. I am, moreover, obliged to say this, when (extolling the Monarchy at the expense of the Economy) they contend for the identity of the Father and Son and Spirit, that it is not by way of diversity that the Son differs from the Father, but by distribution: it is not by division that He is different, but by distinction; because the Father is not the same as the Son, since they differ one from the other in the mode of their being. For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as He Himself acknowledges: My Father is greater than I.' In the Psalm His inferiority is described as being a little lower than the angels.' Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son, inasmuch as He who begets is one, and He who is begotten is another; He, too, who sends is one, and He who is sent is another; and He, again, who makes is one, and He through whom the thing is made is another.??? Tertullian, Against Praxeas, 9 (post A.D. 213).
If you actually want to learn what Eastern Christians believe, instead of what charlatans like George Lamsa might tell you, I recommend asking on this forum:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net">http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net</a><!-- m -->
You will find clergymen and others who are more than willing to answer your questions. There's even an Indian Orthodox deacon there, who would be quite bewildered by your claim that he is, in fact, a "Roman" or "Western" deacon. Christina, are you an Assyrian Christian or a Messianic Jew? From whose teaching are you writing? Deacon Paul Younan is more than capable of explaining what the Assyrian Church teaches, and he knows which councils are accepted by his church and why.
Constantine the Great moved the seat of the empire from Rome to Byzantium. Constantine did not make Christianity the official religion of the empire, this happened after his death. What Constantine did was give the Apostolic Church enough freedom to openly meet in council. The Council of Nicaea did not simply invent doctrine out of nothingness, as historical revisionists claim. The church fathers present, including eastern church fathers, merely articulated what the Church had taught from the beginning, in opposition to the heresy of Arius.
To think of Trinitarianism as a "Roman" doctrine, simply because it was articulated by a council that reaffirmed what the Church had always taught, is illogical. St. Athanasius of Alexandria was definitely not a Westerner. Do you know who that is? If not, then I don't know whether we can have real discussion on church history. The Assyrian Church of the East accepts the Council of Nicaea.
The Oriental Orthodox Church, which comprises the historical churches of India, Egypt, Syria, Ethiopia, Armenia, and Jerusalem, rejected the Council of Chalcedon which, by that time, had been conducted under imperial control. The fathers of my church rejected this council, as its doctrine appeared to support Nestorianism. They were quite willing to suffer the consequence of preserving their historic faith. Whether they were right or wrong, they rejected this council because it disagreed with what their churches had previously taught. If the Council of Nicaea disagreed with their historic teaching, they would have done the same there also.
As I've noted before, the Assyrian Church of the East represents a small minority of Eastern Christians. To claim that the Near and Far East isn't Eastern, and that Christian communities that have existed there from the beginning of the faith are somehow not Eastern, is absurd. If the best one can say about the ecumenical councils is what you may have read in the Da Vinci Code, then it's best we move on to a different topic. I do not mean to cause you harm or offense, but the claims you advocate are unsupported by early church history. Please don't think you can school me regarding church history, unless you're able to substantiate your claims. I mean no lack of charity in saying this.
Please read the following carefully, along with the verses of Scripture I've already provided:
Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 13 (A.D. 155).
"[T]he ever-truthful God, hast fore-ordained, hast revealed beforehand to me, and now hast fulfilled. Wherefore also I praise Thee for all things, I bless Thee, I glorify Thee, along with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, Thy beloved Son, with whom, to Thee, and the Holy Ghost, be glory both now and to all coming ages. Amen." Martyrdom of Polycarp 14 (A.D. 157).
"For God did not stand in need of these [beings], in order to the accomplishing of what He had Himself determined with Himself beforehand should be done, as if He did not possess His own hands. For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks, saying, 'Let Us make man after Our image and likeness;' He taking from Himself the substance of the creatures [formed], and the pattern of things made, and the type of all the adornments in the world." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4,20:1 (A.D. 180).
"And first, they taught us with one consent that God made all things out of nothing; for nothing was coequal with God: but He being His own place, and wanting nothing, and existing before the ages, willed to make man by whom He might be known; for him, therefore, He prepared the world. For he that is created is also needy; but he that is uncreated stands in need of nothing. God, then, having His own Word internal within His own bowels, begat Him, emitting Him along with His own wisdom before all things. He had this Word as a helper in the things that were created by Him, and by Him He made all things. He is called governing principle' (arche), because He rules, and is Lord of all things fashioned by Him. He, then, being Spirit of God, and governing principle, and wisdom, and power of the highest, came down upon the prophets, and through them spoke of the creation of the world and of all other things. For the prophets were not when the world came into existence, but the wisdom of God which was in Him, and His holy Word which was always present with Him. Wherefore He speaks thus by the prophet Solomon: When He prepared the heavens I was there, and when He appointed the foundations of the earth I was by Him as one brought up with Him.' And Moses, who lived many years before Solomon, or, rather, the Word of God by him as by an instrument, says, In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.'" Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus, II:10 (c. A.D. 181).
"In the course of time, then, the Father forsooth was born, and the Father suffered, God Himself, the Lord Almighty, whom in their preaching they declare to be Jesus Christ. We, however, as we indeed always have done and more especially since we have been better instructed by the Paraclete, who leads men indeed into all truth), believe that there is one only God, but under the following dispensation, or oikonomia, as it is called, that this one only God has also a Son, His Word, who proceeded from Himself, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made. Him we believe to have been sent by the Father into the Virgin, and to have been born of her--being both Man and God, the Son of Man and the Son of God, and to have been called by the name of Jesus Christ; we believe Him to have suffered, died, and been buried, according to the Scriptures, and, after He had been raised again by the Father and taken back to heaven, to be sitting at the right hand of the Father, and that He will come to judge the quick and the dead; who sent also from heaven from the Father, according to His own promise, the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost. That this rule of faith has come down to us from the beginning of the gospel, even before any of the older heretics, much more before Praxeas, a pretender of yesterday, will be apparent both from the lateness of date which marks all heresies, and also from the absolutely novel character of our new-fangled Praxeas." Tertullian, Against Praxeas, 2 (post A.D. 213).
"Bear always in mind that this is the rule of faith which I profess; by it I testify that the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and so will you know in what sense this is said. Now, observe, my assertion is that the Father is one, and the Son one, and the Spirit one, and that They are distinct from Each Other. This statement is taken in a wrong sense by every uneducated as well as every perversely disposed person, as if it predicated a diversity, in such a sense as to imply a separation among the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit. I am, moreover, obliged to say this, when (extolling the Monarchy at the expense of the Economy) they contend for the identity of the Father and Son and Spirit, that it is not by way of diversity that the Son differs from the Father, but by distribution: it is not by division that He is different, but by distinction; because the Father is not the same as the Son, since they differ one from the other in the mode of their being. For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as He Himself acknowledges: My Father is greater than I.' In the Psalm His inferiority is described as being a little lower than the angels.' Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son, inasmuch as He who begets is one, and He who is begotten is another; He, too, who sends is one, and He who is sent is another; and He, again, who makes is one, and He through whom the thing is made is another.??? Tertullian, Against Praxeas, 9 (post A.D. 213).
If you actually want to learn what Eastern Christians believe, instead of what charlatans like George Lamsa might tell you, I recommend asking on this forum:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net">http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net</a><!-- m -->
You will find clergymen and others who are more than willing to answer your questions. There's even an Indian Orthodox deacon there, who would be quite bewildered by your claim that he is, in fact, a "Roman" or "Western" deacon. Christina, are you an Assyrian Christian or a Messianic Jew? From whose teaching are you writing? Deacon Paul Younan is more than capable of explaining what the Assyrian Church teaches, and he knows which councils are accepted by his church and why.