Customer Reviews

We Believe in One Lord Jesus Christ (Ancient Christian Doctrine)

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

One might hope this book would use quotations from fourth and fifth-century pro-Nicene theologians to explicate what they and the ecumenical councils intended to affirm by means of the Nicene Creed, as well as their rationales for its theology, but this is not the case. The book seems to offer as many pre-Nicene, proto-Arian and semi-Arian views as it does Nicene views. As Augustine noted (Exposition on Psalm 55:21-22), the Trinity was not perfectly treated of before the Arians snarled thereat" in the fourth century. It was in the context of these fourth-century controversies that theologians debated and refined the doctrine of the Trinity and came to agree on the final version of the Nicene Creed. One of the Arian views they opposed in the creed was that the Word was created and is not co-eternal with the Father. The Nicene Creed rejected this by saying the Son was begotten before the ages, begotten, not made. Yet the book quotes a statement from Tertullian, at the end of the second century, saying the Word was begotten or created just before the creation of the world. The book quotes Origen as well, even though his views on the Trinity were later rejected as like those of the "semi-Arians."

While the fourth-century theologians were concerned about the views of Arius, the more sigificant debate, which the councils sought to settle, was with the "semi-Arians." The issue was whether the Trinity is one divine Being subsisting as three persons, or three divine beings. Since the focus was on Christ, and since God was assumed to be the supreme essence, the question was reduced to whether the eternal Word, incarnate in Christ, was the same essence as the Father, as Athanasius and others said, or a separate but equal essence, as the "semi-Arians" said. The councils repeatedly agreed with the former view, that God is one, and a tri-unity of one essence subsisting as three persons. They councils affirmed this in the Nicene Creed with the phrase 'consubstantial with the Father,' which is now translated translated as 'of one Being with the Father.' The semi-Arians rejected the term 'consubstantial' (Greek homoousios), because it meant the Trinity was one God, one Being, one Essence. They divided the divine essence among the Father and Son, making them separate but equal beings. So they preferred the Greek term homoiousios, which meant "of the same essence" in a general sense, as equal essences. Some of the semi-Arians continued their service for the church and remained well respected for other aspects of their scholarship and service, even though their views on the Trinity were rejected in the councils. This includes Eusebius of Caesarea and Cyril of Jerusalem. They continued to teach their views, however, using a version of the Nicene Creed with the term 'consubstantial' removed. Cyril's Lectures on the Creed, for example, omit it. Yet the book quotes both of these men frequently on the Creed and the Trinity. It also quotes the Creed of the Second Council of Antioch, which was a semi-Arian synod that opposed the Nicene Creed and issued its own anti-Nicene creed in its place. The book cites the "Council of Sardica" as well, even though it produced an anti-Nicene creed.

When the author explains the terms and concepts of the pro-Nicene theologians, he makes them sound compatible with those of the semi-Arians. This is evident throughout, but to be noted is the explanation of the term 'homoousion/ consubstantialis' (p. 69): "consubstantiality teaches that the Son is of the divine essence, in fact is God in the selfsame sense that the Father is God." That is only part of its meaning, and it is the part the semi-Arians agreed with. What is omitted is the fact the term was intended to affirm, against he semi-Arians, that the Father and Son are the numerically same essence and Being, and not just the same essence in quality. One gets the impression that the author is biased in a semi-Arian direction. That would not be surprising, because semi-Arian ideas have become popular the last thirty years. Semi-Arian Christology, however, is contrary to the original meaning of the Nicene Creed and to the intentions of the theologians who defined Nicene Orthodoxy. It was the conviction of these theologians and councils that semi-Arian teachings are contrary to the Scriptures that say there is only one God, with no one beside him, and that God is one.

Nevertheless, I gave the book two stars, because it includes a nice selection of quotations from ancient authors. These are interesting, as long as one understands that many of the views represented are not compatible with the Nicene Creed. Unfortunately, the selection does not include many selections that actually elucidate the Christological views that the Nicene Creed was intended to affirm.

Excellent compilation of Church Fathers who hammered out and continued to affirm the truth of the ancient Christian Faith as expressed in the Nicene Creed.