|
|
ORTHODOX AND CREEDS
“In this sign conquer.” This one phrase is perhaps the single most important factor that changed the course of Church history in the fourth century (312 a.d.). The sign in question was the Cross of Jesus Christ. The occasion of the quote was a vision or dream (depending on whose account is listened to) given to a Roman General after making a plea to the God of the Christians for victory. After receiving this sign, the general was convinced that God was with his army. Emblazoning a bronze cross on his troops’ shield and by some accounts, baptizing each of them, victory was achieved over his enemy. And as the common saying goes, ‘the rest is History!’ The General and next Emperor of Rome was Flavius Constantine the Great. There is much disagreement about Constantine’s conversion. Was it done for political gain or was it genuine. Since the focus of this writing is to address his impact on the Church, I see no need to address those questions now. As Paul said of his beatific vision of heaven, “God knows” (2 Cor. 11:1). Constantine’s role in History is seen from this preacher’s standpoint as being purely providential. At this point in history, there was much disunity within the Body of Christ about critical doctrine, in particular the Deity of Jesus Christ (312 a.d. approx.), Christr as God and man (451 a.d.), and salvation by grace (431 a.d. approx.). During the past two Sundays, the Pastor has been preaching on the holiness of God. No other group of people under the name of religion can make such a claim. While most Christians today are content to look at this foundational doctrine as a mystery not meant to be apprehended or looked into, the early Church defended it to the death. Granted, it is difficult to grasp. Three in One and One in Three, each identical yet co-eternal, coequal in Being. The though alone conjures up all kinds of opinions and conclusions, both good and bad. Combine this with the ever-present philosopher of the day and Gnosticism and you have a serious problem—disunity! Something, Emperor Constantine could not tolerate! All bad theology (heresy) must have a leader. In the case of Christ’s Deity, it was a pastor named Arius who openly challenged his Bishop, Alexander of Alexandria. His position was that Jesus Christ was not the true God; that He was different in Nature, a lesser being and not eternal. He further stated that Christ was the first created Being and even though the greatest being created, he was still just a created being and by no means God. One can imagine the appeal of this teaching to the Christians who had just come out of paganism. Let me state here that I am not saying they were less of a Christian than others; just that in their infant state, they saw a means, although false (and similar to much of what is being taught today by false teachers), of grasping the truth of their Savior. As stated earlier, it is difficult to imagine an eternal God who indwelt the man Jesus Christ, yet remained God and sustaining the universe (cf. Col. 1:17). This was hard theology. Gnosticism at least made it easier to accept that God is pure and holy and from Him emanates lesser gods or beings that do His work. Therefore, it was reasonable to believe Jesus Christ to be one of these emanations Who like the rays of the sun though not the sun, still are very much a part of it. To make his teaching more palatable, Arius was a dynamic preacher and was able to formulate little jingles. It was only a matter of time before they became the trend. Bishop Alexander addressed this problem immediately by convening an ecumenical council at Alexandria (320 a.d.) that condemned Arius’s teaching and excommunicate him. However, this did not stop Arius. He quickly sough out and won the support of Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia. Its important to note Eusebius’ influence at this juncture and why this was good strategy by Arius. At this point in time, Alexandria was the seat of intellect for the eastern empire (by now the Roman Empire was divided into the East and West). But Nicomedia was the political capitol. As Bishop of this city, Eusebius would have had great influence. But even more important was the fact that this would bring the urgency of this issue to the attention of Emperor Constantine. Again, not that he was unaware of this problem, in his mind the division caused by this issue was worse than war. To resolve this issue, he called for a council to meet at Nicea in Asia Minor (325 a.d.). According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, over 300 Bishops attended this council. Such a large gathering of Church leaders stressed the urgency and importance of this matter. Many of the attendants had suffered through persecution and had the scars and missing limbs to prove it. The final product of this council’s deliberation and testimonies was the Nicene Creed. So clear and definitive are the statements in this creed about the Deity of Jesus Christ that I cannot resist quoting a few lines from it. “I Believe in one GOD THE FATHER Almighty; Maker of heaven and earth, and all things visible and invisible. And in one LORD JESUS CHRIST, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds. God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the virgin Mary…” All the Bishops present, except for Arius and two others, adopted this Creed. It should be pointed out that although Bishop Alexander was a major force in this movement, it was his secretary and Deacon Athanasius who was the real hero. Again it shows that God often use ordinary men to carry out His will, empowering them to stand alone if need be, even if it’s against the most powerful empire that has ever existed. In celebration of this momentous event, Emperor Constantine held a great banquet. Just a couple of centuries earlier, such an event would have been unimaginable. But this celebration was short live because although the Deity of Christ had been resolved, it did nothing to address another heresy just as dangerous—the relationship between the humanity and Deity of Jesus Christ! The mystery of the Incarnation, “the enfleshment” of God is one that continuously profound man’s finite mind. However, the question, “Who do men say that I am?” was a critical one in the fifth century. Unlike today, rulers looked to leaders of the Church to defined the Christian Faith accurately. Such a move was especially important in formulating the statement of faith on “the God-man”, a phrase coined by Origen, a student of Clement of Alexandria. Arriving at this truth however did not come easily. Three ecumenical councils were held before agreement on a solid creedal statement. The first was convened in 381 a.d. at Constantinople to silence the heresy that Christ Incarnation involved God the Son’s Divine Nature taking over or replacing the human nature of the man Jesus Christ. In short, this teaching taught that the Divine Nature and Jesus’ human nature became one. The objection to this heresy was obvious since the Gospels clearly portray a Jesus that became tired, hungry and finite in knowledge. The second heresy surrounding the God-man was interesting and shows how important good theology is. Expressed by Nestorius, a monk of Antioch, this particular heresy taught that in the Incarnation the two natures, Divine and human, were separate and not essentially united in Jesus as one person. In other words, he taught a Jesus who was a kind of Jekyl-Hyde (Xristian.org, False Teachings, Historic Heresies: Nestorianism). On the surface, this almost sound biblical. However, Nestorius’ error lies in the fact that in an effort to maintain the integrity of the uniqueness and mystery of the Incarnation, he went to far. He had set out to refute the idea that Mary was not the Mother of God but the mother of the man Jesus. If he would have stayed on that path, he would have remained orthodox. In either case, the Council of Ephesus condemned the Nestorian heresy in 431 a.d. Finally, in 451 a.d., the Council of Chalcedon affirmed that Jesus Christ was “Complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man.” It further stated that “in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division or withour separation,…coming together to form one person” (Christian History). Creeds, confessions and statements of faith are essential in defining our faith. It was only natural that in God’s Providence, they were drafted in a time when the teachings of the apostles were still fresh on the minds of Church Leaders. Although their importance can never be overemphasized, it must be stressed that they do not replace or supersede God’s Word. They were a means of codifying and communicating foundational truths in a manner that would be understandable to the human mind. This is not to say that they fully explained the mysteries of God, to do so would equates man’s knowledge to God’s own. Whatever is known of is known solely because He has graciously chosen to reveal them to us. As John Calvin stated, God speaks to us in the same manner a mother speaks to her child. He condescends to us, as He must, being the finite creatures we are. The mysteries surrounding the Godhead and the Incarnation is one that man will never fully comprehend. But in order to glorify and worship God in the manner worthy of His character and Person, we must at all cost endeavor to apprehend as much of these truths as humanly possible, so that we can sing as the Cherubim:
Holy, holy, holy! Lord God Almighty! All Thy Works shall praise Thy name in earth and sky and sea; Holy, holy, holy! Merciful and mighty! God in three Persons, blessed Trinity.
In Christ, Minister John Cobb
|