|Trinitarian Transgressions||A complete exposé of the false doctrines of Trinitarianism|
|The Council of Nicea|
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, the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance (homoousion, consubstantialem) with the Father. By whom all things were made, both which be in heaven and in earth. Who for us men and for our salvation came down and was incarnate and was made man. He suffered and the third day he rose again, and ascended into heaven. And he shall come again to judge both the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit. And whosoever shall say that there was a time when the Son of God was not, or that before he was begotten he was not, or that he was made of things that were not, or that he is of a different substance or essence or that he is a creature, or subject to change or conversion—all that so say, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them.
One of the main issues at Nicea was to settle what is commonly called today "the Arian controversy." Constantine had recently defeated Maximus and become the Emperor of the Roman Empire, following terrible persecutions of Christians by Emperor Diocletian only a decade before his triumph. Constantine then sanctioned the practice of Christianity in the Roman Empire for the first time and then pronounced it the state religion of his Kingdom a few years later. Now that the opportunity had presented itself, it is at this point in the history of Christianity that religious leaders scrambled for positions of power within this secular state. Prior to this time, Christianity was against the law in the empire and bishops who would otherwise rule by lording over their flocks had no means of forcing anyone to adopt anything in this underground religion but had to persuade people out of love, kindness, gentleness and meekness. However, these rising new church leaders became governing rulers for Constantine's preferred religion, and because Christianity was now sanctioned in the state and then became the state religion, these men who seized upon those positions of authority had the means to enforce their own version of Christianity by establishment of laws, which in effect, had becomes laws of the state and its citizens. As such, the present of controversy found fertile ground for men of worldly character and a conflict arose concerning which version of Christianity to promulgate and so the fight was on to see who would lead this new world order for the church and the initial great struggle came down to two opposing factions.
Right about the time Constantine defeated Maximus and then sanctioned the practice of Christianity by the Edict of Milan, a man named Arius got himself into a Christological debate with Alexandrius in Alexandria, Egypt where they both were leaders in the church. What began as an innocent friendly debate between two church leaders in a local church exploded into a massive controversy. The group which finally came against Arius was eventually led by a man named Athanasius who is exalted by today's Trinitarians. Although Arius was most certainly wrong, or at the very least being misunderstood by his statements, this does not thereby approve the Athanasian party of that time, as they are commonly called, as being right. This is a false dichotomy often presented by Trinitarians when they suggestively ask, "Who was right, Arius or Athanasius?" The right answer is, "Neither."
Although one can still see in the flavor of their words an effort to maintain the true faith here at Nicea, the councils which follow, and ignited by the Athanasian vs. Arian controversy, do not contain the same flavor. One can easily see a growing pompousity among the church authorities in later councils. The Arian controversy was also not "settled" here at Nicea, as is commonly popularized by Trinitarian apologists who suggestively imply the matter was settled by theological debate. This was hardly the case. One day Arius would be politically shut down and the next day it would be Athanasius. Constantine and the people of that empire constantly waffled between one viewpoint and the other for many years to come, and there was a struggle between the Athanasian party and Arian party for over a decade and afterward, until the sudden and very suspicious death of Arius in 336 A.D., and the death of Constantine in 337 A.D., paved the way for an easier Trinitarian struggle. Once Constantine and Arius were removed from the equation, the Athanasian position began to flourish with less difficulty. The struggle was more of a political gang war fighting for power than a congenial theological discussion. Those who sided with Arius continued to thrive in Germanic territories, at first outside the Roman Empire and then on its frontier fringes, until around 700 A.D., when wars, the expansion of Roman control, and marriages between the nobility who determined the faith of the people, had weeded out Arianism from Christendom. Indeed, the persecuted church became the persecuting church in many ways under this new form of ecclesiastical rule afforded by Constantine's worldly freedom to practice the faith in his Kingdom.
One thing that can be easily seen in the Canons of Nicea is the desire for ecclesiastical control. This is absolutely not the way of Christ, and follows the way of the pompous glory loving Nicolatians of John's time whose name means "Victory over the people." When Jesus was teaching his disciples not to "Lord over" the masses this is precisely what he was talking about. Christians were no longer encouraged by mercy and love in the fruit of the Spirit to grow in their faith but forced to abide by authoritarian rule in fear of consequence. Control is based on bondage and fear by enforcing conformity to law through consequence and is not the way of the freedom and love of Christ in the Spirit. Christ desires a willing heart and submission to him out of love, not out of duty and obligation to law. Those who do not comprehend this, also do not at all comprehend Paul, when he says Christ was the end of the Law and its bondage to control by rule, in place of the new freedom and power of Christ in love by the Spirit. As control is birthed in fear, in fear of antinomianism these men sought to control the lives of others by the institution of the rule of laws. Control by canon law is not about willing submission of men to Christ in love, but control of people by other men claiming to serve in the name of Christ. Control is that tyranny which masquerades itself as Power. Few Christians today even comprehend any of these concepts. Men now being afforded worldly power in Constantine's Kingdom did now also seek to weild such worldly control over the people of the church. This spirit of control masquerading as the power of God, clearly arose with Constantine's Kingdom and the Council of Nicea.
Out of this new system of ecclesiastical control, a new concept began to emerge which was the idea that if one did not hold to the "Athanasian" view, then one was simply not a Christian. Arians were ostracized by Athanasians and an Arian was not allowed to have communion with Athanasian Trinitarians which by implication meant Athanasians did not regard Arians as Christians and if an Arian could not partake of communion he was effectively no allowed to practice his faith. This was the Athanasian means of enforcement of its own favorite concept of Christ's nature in order to control the masses by fear. This is a prime example of men lusting to seize control over the people in order that all would favor their views and thus they would be able to maintain their chairs of authority and honor. Fanstasically, this concept has prevailed until today among many groups in Christendom who like to style themselves as "orthodox" and they use this selfsame unBiblical Trinitarian measuring stick to determine for themselves whether or not one is a Christian and presume they have the authority to do so for God himself and henceforth label those who do not agree with a negative term such as "cult." This idea was an invention of these men at this time and cannot be found in the Sciptures by any stretch of the imagination nor in the ante-Nicene writings of the "church fathers." Before Nicea, no one had such a concept that a certain doctrine detailing Christ's nature was a measure of a true Christian belief system.
As it stands, there is absolutely nothing technically wrong with the words themselves used in the above Nicean statement and if spoken aloud they will be quite true to the listening ear. However, there are numerous problems with in the statement that have wide reaching implications. First, it avoids discussing whether there were any changes in substance of the Son between his incarnation and bodily resurrection. Therefore, anyone reading this should not presume upon the incarnate Christ's nature by this statement which makes no distinctions whatsoever between his incarnate nature and his risen bodily nature. The statement can only be taken to refer to the risen Christ. If Nicea did intend to say that Christ's incarnate nature was deity this is completely wrong unless they also want to confess that the dead body in the tomb was also "God" who cannot be dead.
Secondly, the above translation is quite misleading. It uses capitals to imply "person" where it most certainly appears "nature" of substance is implied. Capital letters are used to identify a person, not describe a nature, and when used to describe a nature as done above, it misleads readers into thinking Jesus is being identified as "God." In other words, readers are mislead into believe the statement tells us who he was/is by identity rather than what he was/is by nature.
Carefully observe below, how, at Nicea that the word "God" is becoming a word for "deity" of substance (the red words below answering the question "what?") and not a word to identify "God" as "who" (blue answering the question "who?") God is in terms of his person, identity and office/position. Notice carefully what they did here. The words "Son of God" and "God of God" are made synonymous where the word "Son" [of God] is used when one wants to refer to "who" he is and "God" [of God] is used when they want to refer to "what" he is. It is already the beginning of the identity vs. nature shell game of Trinitarianism. Notice that the "switch" was made in the phrase "substance of the Father." This is how they came to speak of Jesus Christ as a "substance." Here they speak of the person as a substance, but henceforth after this in later councils, we shall also see that they also do another shell game where the Son is not himself the substance of flesh but simply "has" the substance of flesh as a possession. In other words, they have devised several ways of referring to who Christ was and what Christ was so that they can implicitly use whichever definition is required for the occasion. This is the basis of the Trinitarian illusion. Notice how the word "God" in three cases can refer to either a person or a substance (you may define it in whatever manner is most convenient for the occasion to suit the agenda). Does "Light of Light" mean "Light of the Person who is known as 'Light'?" Or does "Light of Light" mean Light of the substance of God which is Light?" And, and in the same way, does "God of God" and "very God of very God" mean "substance of person," or "substance of substance," or "person of substance," or "person of person?" Do you see how many games they can play with such words?
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, the Only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father, 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, both which be in heaven and in earth. Who for us men and for our salvation came down and was incarnate and was made man. He suffered and the third day he rose again, and ascended into heaven. And he shall come again to judge both the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit. And whosoever shall say that there was a time when the Son of God was not, or that before he was begotten he was not, or that he was made of things that were not, or that he is of a different substance or essence or that he is a creature, or subject to change or conversion—all that so say, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them.
In Trinitarianism, God the Son and Jesus Christ are one and the same person. Notice here that we would have the person who is "God," as the second person of the Trinity, suffering. Also notice here that the word "died" is avoided.
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one God the Son, the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father. By God the Son all things were made, both which be in heaven and in earth. God the Son for us men and for our salvation came down and was incarnate and was made man. God the Son suffered and the third day he rose again, and ascended into heaven. And he shall come again to judge both the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit. And whosoever shall say that there was a time when God the Son was not, or that before he was begotten he was not, or that he was made of things that were not, or that he is of a different substance or essence or that he is a creature, or subject to change or conversion—all that so say, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them.
Nicea already reveals several problems arising in the church. Arius was not the only problem. The problem was itself in the erroneous minds of these controlling men. They are dabbling in illusions and deceptions wherein they refer to "God" as a "thing" (substance) in one breath and as an "identity" (person) in the next. And now you see how they formed the basis for the Trinitarian deception.
Council of Nicea