andrewcriddle

IIUC the point is Nicea 325 claims to believe in the Holy Ghost/Spirit but this could be taken as a mere belief in the existence in some sense of the Holy Spirit. EG Christians who believed the Holy Spirit was some sort of Angel would have had no problem with this part of the creed. A genuinely Trinitarian creed is required to be a little more specific.

Andrew Criddle

rlogan

Hi Andrew.

There are three entities in the creed.


One of these, one designee named Jesus Christ:

was made man.

Which seemed to be the most strenuous objection made in the OP - that I was out of line for suggesting so.

gentleexit

What I said was that the texts were (and are) open to interpretation. Arius exposed this yet again and in seeking help exposed inter-city rivalries. To quiet the storm, Constantine had to call the council.

This was a Church dispute. Alexandrian in origin, made inter-city by Eusebius of Nicomedia et al. Constantine first and foremost wanted unanimity. He cared little for the niceties of Father vs Son - read the Oration to the Assembly of Saints.

As for making all sign. Constantine was rash - he tried to snuff out the Donatists in the previous decade only to back down and he would do the same with the Arians. First knock heads. Then back down.

Too ambiguous a term to be meaningful. I think he was first and foremost a grammarian. He read the texts and tried his best to square them.

Roger Pearse

Perhaps some ancient sources for these claims would be appropriate?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

mountainman

Dear Roger,

The History of Rufinus of Aquileia, Book 10 and
The History of Socrates Scholasticus, Chapter 8

Best wishes,


Pete

Roger Pearse

Neither (long) text contains the claims made.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

gentleexit

Roger, I like Theodoret for four letters written by participants in Nicea. I see the conference in them. Three come from before, one from after.

Start in Alexandria and her bishop.

Letter of Alexander of Alexandria to his namesake in Byzantium: very vitriolic, angry with his minions including Arius who "attack the religion of the Church", "maddened by the devil". Tells Alexander to "guard against them" and their "specious letters, calculated to delude one who has devoted himself to the simple and undefiled faith".

Here is frustration. "To establish this insane doctrine they insult the Scriptures". Unfortunately, he's wrong when he claims a "godly clearness of the ancient scriptures". He does try to back his position from them, tries to show that "only begotten son" means co-eternity for father and son but always falls back on personal attack or that old saw, a call to accept established views, the "unanimous piety of all our fellow-ministers". Reject the new! Reject thought that "never entered the mind of any other individuals".

Finally, he's reduced to "the ineffable personality of the only-begotten God is beyond the keenest conception of the evangelists and perhaps even of angels", to "I do not think men ought to be considered pious who presume to investigate this subject". Don't seek. You won't find. Alexander of Byzantium, please don't talk to these people.

And Arius is sending "specious letters" to other churchmen. One to Eusebius of Nicomedia ...

Letter of Arius to Eusebius: complains of "persecution" by Alexander "on account of that all-conquering truth of which you also are a champion". Here's the grammarian: "before He was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, He was not". "Begotten" just means "created". It isn't special, isn't beyond "the keenest conception" of anyone. You can picture an angry Alexander hearing this.

Eusebius is called "my fellow-Lucianist" which some say means they both studied under Lucian but elsewhere Arius isn't put into that group. This likely means "in approach, in outlook". And what is this outlook? A doctrine? Or is it an approach to scripture? To study?

Now for Eusebius' letter. BTW, Theodoret's comment on it - "When Eusebius received the epistle, he too vomited forth his own impiety" - is very Alexandrian!

Eusebius to Paulinus of Tyre: this asks Paulinus to "consent to write in accordance with Scripture, and tread in the tracks of its words and will" ... "These opinions we advance not as having derived them from our own imagination, but as having deduced them from Scripture". Here are the opinions and scriptural ballast of the "Eusebians" or "Lucianists" or "Arians" (pick your label). The words that would be debated in Nicea are picked apart. "Begotten", "Substance". Again "Begotten" isn't special - think of "Who begat the drops of dew". It just means "created". This uses scripture to counter the Alexandrian's special place for the word in "only begotten son of god".

These three letters show scripture in play, open to interpretation, that the Eusebians were good grammarians, but their position was novel, not the Church's consensus. The only way to counter their insanity was with vitriol - or was it? A creed would make an official reading, disallow others. The Nicean creed would drop in "consubstantial" to back up "only begotten".

Here's the recollection of Nicea by Athanasius in his letter to the Africans.

Athanasius to the Africans: "the followers of Eusebius/the Arians" (he uses both) "complain of having been condemned by expressions ... not actually in Scripture". Athanasius' only counter - "groundless by their own practice, for their own impious assertions are not taken from Scripture". In other words, we're right because you are as bad as us! No, no. The Eusebians "found their words on a dunghill" but the bishops "received their testimony from the fathers". Ah! Dead bishops read this way. So should we. Here is Alexander's call to reject novelties that "never entered the mind of any other individuals".

IMO, this is all the stuff of grammarians and frustrated authority - these letters speak for themselves. There was a consensus belief about Father and Son, thought to be clear in scripture. Arius et al showed that scriptures could be read otherwise. Authority needed to force a read. Yes later Historians tried to put a gloss on this and it's telling that they adopted much of Alexander's tone when they did so.

Do you read these or other sources differently?

Roger Pearse

Not a bit. (Arius is writing to Eusebius of Nicomedia, above) I agreed with your point that interpretation of scripture was what it was all about, and I remembered Athanasius De synodis Nicenis on this. Inter alia, it indicates no disagreement about what was scripture at Nicaea.

You are doubtless aware of my collection of links to all the ancient testimonia on Nicaea here, but some may not be.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

gentleexit

Yep and no where does anyone disagree with Eusebius' lists in Church History. For example, The Shepherd is acceptable to read but not inspired and so not authoritative. A pre-Nicean consensus on core texts is clear.

Yes and the myth chasing is a great novelty - this must be the only page with both Ancient Texts and Shirley MacLaine! On the list of texts, should Alexander's Catholic Epistle (ANF 06) go there too? It's the letter in which he mouths off about Eusebius of Nicomedia. In general, I think the role of that Eusebius is too underplayed.

Thx Roger,
Conor

Roger Pearse

It certainly seems to. Probably the others held the sort of role that the OT apocrypha hold today; everyone knew about them, some people were sure that they were scripture, and others quietly ignored them.

It doesn't discuss the events at Nicaea, tho, so doesn't belong in that collection. I don't think that I had seen Alexander's letters; interesting indeed as highlighting the problems spreading across the East that the council was intended to solve.

All the best,

Roger Pearse