The Christ Centred Cosmic Civilisation
Rod Dreher wrote “to order the world rightly as Christians requires regarding all things as pointing to Christ”
Christ is the One in Whom in all things consist and humanity is not the measure of all things. If a defining characteristic of the modern world is disorder then the most fundamental act of resistance is to discover and life according to the deep, divine order of the heavens and the earth.
In this series we want to look at the big model of the universe that the Bible and Christian history provides.
It is a mind and heart expanding vision of reality.
It is not confined to the limits of our bodily senses - but tries to embrace levels fo reality that are not normally accessible or tangible to our exiled life on earth.
We live on this side of the cosmic curtain - and therefore the highest and greatest dimensions of reality are hidden to us… yet these dimensions exist and are the most fundamental framework for the whole of the heavens and the earth.
Throughout this series we want to pick away at all the threads of reality to see how they all join together - how they all find common meaning and reason in the great divine logic - the One who is the Logos, the LORD Jesus Christ - the greatest that both heaven and earth has to offer.
Colossians 1:15-23
The Christ Centred Cosmic Civilisation
Episode 101 - Hired Philosophers vs. Smelly Shepherds: The Surprising Heroes of Nicaea
On May 20th, 325 AD, a gathering began that would forever shape Christianity. The Council of Nicaea stands as perhaps the most consequential theological assembly in church history, and this episode takes you directly into the debates and confrontations that occurred 1,700 years ago today.
Drawing from eyewitness accounts and historical records, we explore the fascinating dynamics between opposing camps at Nicaea. On one side stood Arius and his "mercenary philosophers"—highly educated men hired to provide academic credibility to teachings that denied Christ's full deity. Opposing them were orthodox bishops who relied not on philosophical speculation but on faithful interpretation of Scripture.
What emerges is a striking contrast between approaches to theological understanding. While sophisticated philosophers constructed elaborate arguments, simple believers like Spyridon of Trimythous—a shepherd who still smelled of his flocks—demonstrated that knowing "nothing except Jesus Christ and him crucified" could prove more powerful than all the philosophical learning of the ancient world.
Perhaps most moving is the account of a humble bishop confronting one of Arius's philosophers. Though other bishops worried this simple man would become "a laughingstock," his straightforward confession of faith rendered the philosopher speechless and ultimately led to his conversion. "Divine power emerged from the mouth of my adversary," the philosopher admitted, "for man cannot resist God."
The story of Nicaea reminds us that theological truth isn't about intellectual prowess but faithful reception of divine revelation. Even the brilliant young Athanasius appears to have learned at Nicaea to value the simple faith of uneducated monks and shepherds—a lesson that would shape his approach to church leadership for decades to come.
Whether you're a theology enthusiast, church history buff, or simply curious about Christianity's formative moments, this episode offers fresh insights into how a gathering of bishops—many still bearing the scars of persecution—articulated a vision of Christ that Christians worldwide still confess today.
The theme music is "Wager with Angels" by Nathan Moore
Well, welcome to the Christ-centered cosmic civilization. And we're at the Council of Nicaea and this episode will have come out on the 20th of May 2025, which is exactly 1,700 years ago. But can we know for sure that it did begin on the 20th of may? Let's ask pj from the global church history project yeah, so there's a guy called theodore lector, or theodore the lector, who wrote a history about the nicene council and everything that happened and he had access to all. He's a lector in constantinople, so he's got access to all the imperial records and everything. So he has the actual annotations of the councils and he just gives you sections of it. So people say very little of his history is actually him. He more or less just puts his primary sources all in order so you can just read because he you know, obviously people start debating exactly what happened. He thinks right, let's just set out exactly what everyone said, what all the notes say, everything Just puts it all in a row. He's got a big list of all the bishops who were there and all of that, but he admits he can't get all of them because of that thing we mentioned before. But anyway, so he says and the time of the synod we find in the annotations. It was the consulship of Paulinus and Julian, on the 20th of May, and this was the 636th year from Alexander King of Macedonia's 19th year. The business of the synod then was accomplished. Oh well, he has this at the end of his history, but yeah, and it should be known that after the synod, the king set out to the eastern parts. So, yeah, he just quotes the actual annotations and he preserves for us the actual little summary the annotations have for exactly when it was called. Yeah, there we go. So that's as good as as we're gonna get to prove exactly when it started. It's the guy who basically just compiled all the minutes of the meeting and he's just like, yep, this is when everything happened. So this is it, uh, the 1700th anniversary. Now what we want to focus on is getting into the actual events and conversations and speeches that were at this council, and it kind of the heart of the council lasts a month and at the end of the month they can formulate the creed and canons. We probably won't get to canons in this episode, we'll leave that till next episode. But the creed, well, let's see if we can get to there now in this episode. We'll leave that till next episode. But the creed well, let's see if we can get to there.
Speaker 1:Now let me read again from the particular historian that I have relied on, and he says this day by day our holy bishops discussed numerous matters of faith for a long time because they didn't want to make any rash decisions on such a critical issue. And then they say this listen to this. Their greatest trouble and concern was how they might overthrow his lawless doctrine and define sound doctrine with their vote. So in fact, that was interesting, that they were very keen to hear exactly what it is that Arius had to say and why he was saying it, so that they could make sure that they engage with it properly and defeated it properly. So sometimes I've heard people say, oh, I don't know whether they really listened properly to what Arius was saying. I've heard that often said that they didn't really understand what Arius was saying, find that that is ludicrously untrue and that the records indicate that there was a lot of of hearing the arguments of arius and all his philosopher friends. So, um, it says this after much consideration and prayer to god, they made the following decision, as is they wisely refuted the lawless doctrine of Arius and his supporters utterly uprooting and obliterating their abominable blasphemies against the Son of God. And again, like some people might say, that language seems a bit emotionally over the top, but if you remember how disgusted we all felt when I read out those two paragraphs of the actual teaching of Arius and his people, I think actually, if anything, that's understating how horrific it was, and that we were advised to stop our ears and we were immediately, if you remember, given some biblical therapy to heal us from hearing such blasphemies. So here again it's explained.
Speaker 1:I'm reading again, quotation our bishops opposed their assertion, the Arian assertion, that the Son of God is not from God, by saying that he is God from God. So the little paragraph I'm going to read now is if you know the text of the Nicene Creed, what is happening here is, that is, this little paragraph is explaining how they ended up saying each of those little clauses and phrases that are in the Nicene Creed. And here there's an explanation to say now, in all these deliberations and conversations and arguments that happen, they ended up saying each of these little parts of the Nicene Creed because they had to confront and reject these blasphemous ideas. So the Aryans said Jesus or God. The Son is not from God. So they said no, he is God from God. And then the Aryans would say he is not true God. And so the Nicene Fathers said he is true God from true God, and that when they said he's a created being, the Aryans they said the Orthodox bishops, he is begotten, not created, and they opposed the assertion. When they said the Aryans said the son is of a different essence, and they said no, the son is of the same being as the father, begotten from the being of the father, and that they and then they wanted to declare that he is creator and craftsman of the visible and the invisible, in keeping with the apostolic faith entrusted to the church from the beginning. And they provided evidence from scripture for all of this. And that's again super important Because, again, in dealing with a lot of these ecumenical councils and I've read and listened to huge amounts of stuff on this over the years and listened to huge amounts of stuff on this over the years One of the very, very disappointing things I find is a lot of the people today who claim to be enthusiasts for the councils and the faith articulated at the councils or they'll say such and such a thing is the Nicene faith and things.
Speaker 1:Such and such a thing is the Nicene faith and things. I would say about 75% of what I hear from people who claim to be enthusiasts for these ecumenical councils or the faith of them really hardly ever mention the Bible. Modern day advocates of it. They're very, very interested in detailed exegesis of theological texts from people in the 4th century, 5th century, 6th century, 7th century or whatever, and they spend far more time trying to exegete and micro-analyse what is meant by the words of Gregory of Nyssa or Maximus the Confessor or something like that. But the same level of passion and attention to detail about the scriptures I literally I know you might think I'm exaggerating, but I honestly have found that at least 75% of the stuff I've listened to, there's really zero or very, very little scriptural pageant. But that is not the case when you go to the actual people themselves. When you go to the bishops that were at Nicaea and the language they use. They're constantly citing the scriptures and for them that's the only thing that matters. They're not after Like.
Speaker 1:I was listening to a thing just the other day and they were talking. It was one kind of Christian discussing this council with another kind of Christian. I won't go into that now. But the criticism from one of them was like you're not serious because you're not on top of metaphysical, philosophical language, so you shouldn't even be trying to engage with this. And it made me so sad that I couldn't even carry on listening because I just thought how any all of the Orthodox bishops at the Council of Nicaea would have been found that disgusting and Constantine definitely would, because he always was suspicious of over-intellectualising the faith and kind of taking it away from real church life. But it was really upset me because I just thought, oh my goodness, because I'd been reading all this stuff from the people who were actually at the Council of Nicaea and it struck me again and again that they were wonderful Christians and devout and humble.
Speaker 1:So many of them there's lovely stories, them and the, the sincerity and their real attempt and their passion to make sure that what they're saying fits with scripture and that the language they use they want to make sure that it exactly conforms to what the bible and everything they say. Have we got bible? Does the bible really say and where does it say that and so on. And I've been staggered how much they engage with the scriptures, particularly the Old Testament. So, yeah, this kind of care about articulating and that they constantly provide evidence from scripture. So my little challenge is if you are passionate about these ancient creeds and councils, don't get into this trap that does happen, where people end up taking the creeds and a kind of philosophy derived from them as like the real authority more than the Bible. As far as I can tell, certainly at the Council of Nicaea, nobody at Nicaea would want anyone to believe anything that isn't demonstrated from scripture. In a way that they're like protestants really. They saying the supreme authority is scripture, not philosophy, not even what has previously been taught, because, although they love to want to make sure that they are passing on faithfully, what's been the teaching that's been passed down to them? They the test for that is always scripture. So I just leave that there with you to meditate on. If you're a listener Now, then one of the interesting little things that happens is when the teaching of Arius was set out, this guy that we've mentioned before, bishop Hosius of Cordova in Spain, who represented the Bishop of Rome.
Speaker 1:He made a sort of opening statement, and I'll just give it to you the good and the bad, I'll give you the whole of it and then we'll perhaps just comment on whether it's quite as good as it could have been. So this is what this guy says, bishop Hosius. Everyone's very respectful to him because he's representing, of course, a large chunk of the Western Europeans who up to now probably haven't been at the very forefront of the deepest theological thoughts, not like the North Africans and the Asia Minor or the Anatolians and things all that, levant and all that. But nevertheless, here he is and he says this through an interpreter. It specified that he was speaking through an interpreter. It's specified that he was speaking through an interpreter, meaning that he'll have been speaking Latin, and then this has been put into Greek, and this is why I want to perhaps give him the benefit of the doubt that something may have been lost in translation. But he says this, and so there's good.
Speaker 1:But also let's just listen carefully he says the deity is not one person, as Jews think, but three persons in true substance, not merely in name. Both the Old and New Testaments proclaim this in many passages. Right, so just pause there. This sounds good, really. I mean the deity. It's probably better if he specifies, but anyway, let's leave that the deity is not one person, but three persons in true substance, not merely in name. So again, notice what he's saying. He's saying it's not just that there are three manifestations of the one God and there are like three names of three different activities or something he's like. No, there is real substance and it is the hypostasis. There are three hypostasis, three individuations. So that's good.
Speaker 1:And then he strongly asserts both the Old and New Testament proclaim this in many passages that the deity is not one person but three persons in three, in true substance, three hypostasis. But then you see, he unfortunately says the old testament, speaking rather physically, treats the word, the logos, as a spoken word. The new testament shows that the word is God. In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God. It also shows that he is a perfect person, prosopon telion, a fully realized person from what is perfect, for the Son is not partially God but holy God, just like the Father is, for he is of the same essence as the Father who begot him in an inexpressible way. So it's good, like again, all good, except he says, he initially says it's taught the same way in both the Old and the New Testaments many times.
Speaker 1:Then he goes mind you, the Old Testament doesn't really understand it, but the New Testament does. You're like, oh dude, what you gave with one hand you took away with the other. That's not good enough to say that, because, as we see in the exegesis of the Orthodox Fathers at Nicaea, they really think no, the Old Testament saints definitely know that the Logos is a person, and maybe he knew that too. I'm sure that something was lost in translation here. There's no way Bishop Hoseus of Cordoba could actually think the Old Testament didn't understand the deity of the sun, because he says that it does, but there it is.
Speaker 1:Anyway, he concludes by saying in the same way, the Holy Spirit coexists with the Father and the Son, for he is of the same essence and the same substance. Notice that Now, that was interesting, as the Father and the son. He differentiates again here between. The Holy Spirit coexists with the father and the son, of the same essence, usia, and the same substance, krema, like you know, essence and substance being not the same thing, which is interesting. Therefore, he concludes, we must confess that the father, the son and the holy spirit have, and then now he says, one will, one reign, one authority, one lordship over all created beings, both perceivable and only conceivable, one divine nature and one essence. We must not mix or divide the indescribable blessed trinity, so we mustn't collapse them down to a single person, nor separate them out into like three gods. But he either introduces something which the language as it stands will of course become an enormous problem this kind of thing at the Seventh Ecumenical Council but he asserts that they have one will, one reign, one authority, one lordship over all. So he's introducing that idea here or asserting it.
Speaker 1:What do you think he meant by that? As you say, if we're being charitable, because there is mentioned a problem of translation, and just translating on the spot one might make a problem, and not thinking about how something might sound, another language, one might make a problem. So there's like two layers of potential problems. So, being as charitable as possible, it may be, given that he talks about one lordship, and that's obviously something like they share in a way. I mean it might be more so it might be that they share one. He's saying they share one consciousness or something which would be terrible. But I think if we're being charitable, we'll think instead, what he's saying is that they have the same sort category, yeah, and that they work together in complete harmony in will and reign and lordship. It's not like there's no sense in which one is trying to accomplish one thing.
Speaker 1:I think, hearing it the second time, I felt because sometimes you get that where all of Israel speaks in one voice and it's not like they literally have one instance of a voice, they all just are saying the same thing. Yeah, and you know. So, listening again, I was thinking maybe you could actually legitimately see it that way. Yeah, I do think that he's actually legitimately see it that way. Yeah, I do think that he's emphasising how they are united they are three, because he's really gone out of his way to say there really are three of them, but they're not separate like separate gods, that they're actually all completely united in everything they do and in their reign and everything he's emphas harmony of that, isn't it because you can feel he's trying to get that he's rejecting unitarianism and he's rejecting tritheism and trying to assert and tritheism is always a key problem that we've always got to look out for people are always. You know, I'm.
Speaker 1:It's funny how often people rage against the danger of tritheism, as if it's a constant like, as if people are knocking on my door all the time. We'd like to talk to you about the three separate gods who were loosely connected. I know it's amazing. Anyway, I always chuckle when someone says, oh, there's a danger of tritheism there. Unitarianism that is a massive problem and there are endless cults and whole denominations have sunk away.
Speaker 1:Congregationalism in the 19th century just became Unitarian and everything. I can't think of examples like did the I don't know the United Reformed, or did the Presbyterians in the 19th? No, they went Unitarian too. It's not as if the Presbyterians well, they went Tritheist. Anyway, nevertheless, we're guarded against it and that's all thanks to Hoseus that we've never encountered. He warned us off that. No, I mean, everyone speaks very highly of him and he does sound good. It's just that when I've listened carefully to some of the things he says, I'm like I think that maybe you know it's maybe not exactly what he meant.
Speaker 1:Anyway, when all this had been said, and then there's a little comment here by this eyewitness who says these things that were said Remember, we've had Constantine's opening speech and we've had some of the arguments and things but it says when this had been said or rather, the Holy Spirit said this through the good bishops, the good bishops. Then it says this the defenders of Arius' godlessness muttered, distressed, so maybe like because Hoseus had sort of asserted that we are neither Unitarian nor Tritheus, but here we believe in the true deity of the sun and all of this. And you know, from that perspective he's done a really good job, hoseus, I mean even you know, the substance of what he's saying is very targeted against the Arians, and he's done a good job. So the defenders of Arius were not happy, and then they were told that they're actually followers of Eusebius of nicomedea and theognis of nicaea, um, and then it says here that they, once this had been said and they were this dark, this crowd of sinister people in the corner, the aureus crowd, um, they all looked over at Arius's mercenary philosophers, highly learned men whom Arius had hired as advocates for his depravity, with whom he'd come to the Holy Ecumenical Council. So it's interesting that Arius had kind of hired classical Greek philosophers, hired classical greek philosophers basically, uh, neoplatonists, um, essentially, from when, if we listen to their arguments? And uh, he's hired them as kind of legal advocates, almost as if to go right, I'm going to bring in some real academic muscle here to show what you know, real philosophy and we need to be credible, and so on.
Speaker 1:Arius wants to make sure in his mind that the Christian faith is utterly syncretized with what are the assured findings of true philosophy. So he's got, and it says, here again, the eyewitness account many philosophers were present, the enemies of truth this is how they're described here the enemies of truth, having placed their hope in philosophers, were fittingly refuted along with their teacher and his blasphemy. And it says and then we're told the Holy Scripture says Jeremiah 17, 5,. Cursed is everyone who puts his hope in humans and whose heart turns away from the Lord. And then they say this prophecy was fulfilled with respect to Arius and his philosophers. So that's interesting, isn't it?
Speaker 1:Arius is depicted as not really a theologian. Arius and his team are philosophers, and then the Orthodox bishops over against them are theologians. They are scripture people and that's what it is. It's scripture versus philosophy, and this eyewitness Entirely depicts it as Scripture versus philosophy.
Speaker 1:And yeah, one of Arius's philosophers, admired much more than all the others, fiercely contended for Arius against our bishops for many days, and there was a large audience gathered to hear the war of words and it grew larger and larger as it went on. And he was articulating. The son of God did not always exist. He is a creature, a work produced from what did not exist and of a different essence and substance. So he would explain all that. Of course those of us who know the Greek pagan philosophy would be like yeah, of course for him. He can totally describe a view of god the son that's consistent with that, because you cannot have, like, if you think about plotinus and his understanding of the one, that the one that cannot possibly interact with human beings is not even conscious of the universe and human beings or anything like that that if you think of that as true divinity, that cannot become incarnate. Whoever Jesus is has to be some lesser form of divinity, has to be from the perspective of Neoplatonism or strictly pure Neoplatonism. So it just says our bishops fighting for truth fiercely employed proper and fitting arguments for apostolic doctrine against the philosophers, and it's scripture again by which they did it. It says here they destroyed all the philosophers' crafty premises with God's word, just as flax is consumed by fire.
Speaker 1:Any thoughts? Yeah, I thought it was quite interesting when we thought about the team of people Alexander brought with him that was meticulously listed and it's all just like deacons. And when you think deacons are just servants, especially at that time, and they do paperwork for local businesses, they do loads of just this stuff about just making life, work for the christian community and getting in the nitty-gritty and helping people get out of poverty. That was a big thing in the church of alexandria. Loads of farmers could work, often in poverty, and the church took on all their shipping and like taking on bonds and all of this to take people out of poverty, taking all this stuff. Deacons are the people who do this. They just kind of um, really practical, sort of normal stuff, and they're not caught up in very cerebral things, they're kind of busy doing real life. And we thought about um, we thought about spiradon last time and how he's like that because he's just a shepherd. So even their bishops are like that.
Speaker 1:But when we thought alexander, when he's like I need a team of the best people, I need people, what he thinks is I need people who are just putting jesus commands into practice in difficult situations, in impoverished areas, and who are growing the church and evangelizing and all of this, whereas arius doesn't. I don't think we would see any mention of any deacons or anyone. It's so there's his bishops because they have a certain air of authority. Two of them are ex-bishops, oh yeah. So he likes people who can use the church to gain authority from it, but otherwise he seems to have people who don't actually seem to be baptized yeah, they're not even baptized, these philosophers.
Speaker 1:So for him he's after academic credibility and power, whereas, yeah, like Spiridon we're going to think about him again in a minute you know, he's just like a lovely, genuine Christian. Yeah, and I love that. The Bishop Alexander says I've got to bring my absolute best people who are the most godly, humble servants and who stink like sheep because they've been working in the fields and things. And so they arrive. And it's just amazing, that difference, isn't it, between people who know the Bible and are living it out and and and are not so concerned with like, or not at all concerned with the, what the academic thing is. And then arius is only interested in that and wants to kind of smash, uh, with his academic credibility. I, I guess, because even these eyewitnesses who are Orthodox people say, no, no, they were very, very bright people that he got with him like super smart philosophers, but they are destroyed by their own arguments, kind of thing.
Speaker 1:And I think Athanasius goes through a bit of a change, because if you look at his books from before this point and he becomes Coptic Pope shortly after this and if you look at stuff from before that point, he does down a lot of the humble monks who live in the countryside, who are like anthropomorphists and they believe the world always existed and things like that. And Athanasius in his early books is always having a dig at these very humble, genuine Christians who were kind of in the nitty-gritty and fighting the good fight right where it needs to be, and but then at that time he's like no, they're not being academic and they're kind of dragging the faith down sort of stuff. And I think maybe no, and after this point he does a lot of like goodwill towards them and he does start respecting them and, uh, you know, does some, goes to trips to their holy monasteries and really honors some of their abbots and things. Because I think maybe he saw like a dark mirror of like, oh, that's where this kind of idea of mocking people about academic rigor and things like that that might be. So athanasius was very clever guy and he had reason to be. Clearly he could be confident in his own brain. I mean, he got a big one but he learned. I guess he looked and thought now who am I with here? Who are the people I respect? I can intellectually respect the people with Aureus, but I don't respect them because they're evil, whereas these simple souls over over here some of whom are clever too, but he's like they're coming from an entirely different place they just want to be faithful to the scriptures. They love jesus um. I'm with them, and so you feel like his experience at nicaea actually kind of humbled him and enabled him to be a much greater church leader afterwards than he was before.
Speaker 1:Yeah, absolutely, and I think if you just read um, I think it's on the incarnation that he wrote before, like when he was still in his teens. Oh, he wrote it ridiculously young, wasn't it? Like younger than like 19 is the oldest he could have possibly been, and it's like even at 19,. That's ridiculous. But if he was like 15 or something, there's no way. But there is, he was that brilliant. So there is that, I think. When you think about that, you think there's every reason to believe he might have been puffed up before, and so when he's having a go at all these rustic monks beforehand and then afterwards suddenly changes tune massive respect for them. And it seems to be this council and you do think. I think that it makes sense. He doesn't say it explicitly, but I feel a case can be made. Yeah, I feel that's a great point.
Speaker 1:I certainly in my own study, the more I studied Nicaea and the people who attended and the way they behaved it has had, I felt that the same thing. It's affected me like do theology, the way they do it and speak like them and pray like them and care about the things that they cared about, and it's changed the way I thought about all the niceene stuff and it's why, like I spoke earlier, that some of the people who say, oh, I'm being totally faithful to the Nicene faith, I'm like, no, I don't think you are, like you've abstracted some intellectual idea of the Nicene faith but you're nothing like the Nicene people. Yeah, well, with that in mind, I'm going to end with now. We think this is spiradon. Um, this episode we're going to end with an incident he's not named here, but we think it's spiradon, don't we the smelly shepherd guy? Because it fits him exactly and you had a quotation concerning him that seemed to say exactly this. Yeah, yeah, there's in a lot of like. I think the orthodox church of america have like a geography on him that says this, and I think saint dimitri of rostov, it's the same thing, oh, okay, um, the excommunical patriarch on his feast, which is the 12th of december, and he did a speech on the 12th of December 2012. 12, 12, 12. Yeah, you'd have to go big on St Spyridon's Day then, and he did, and he did a big life, and I think he includes this there.
Speaker 1:This incident, yeah, well, yeah, or this kind of behaviour, yeah, well, let me give the incident. It's when this eyewitness is speaking about how these philosophers super clever but were caught out Like again, job 5.13 and 1 Corinthians 3.19. Those verses are actually quoted here in the eyewitness account that God catches the wise in their craftiness and that, rather, his rule resides not in word but in power the 1 Corinthians 4.20. And so, as an example of this, there's a lovely little story preserved. I'll just read the whole thing and that will conclude this episode. It says this quote there was a man among the holy confessors present at the council who was simple soul, like hardly any of the other saints and knew nothing except Jesus Christ and him crucified, 1 Corinthians 2.2.
Speaker 1:So just, jesus Christ and him crucified according to the scriptures. Jesus Christ and him crucified according to the scriptures. Now he was together with the bishops and saw that the philosopher, this main Aryan philosopher, was belittling our holy bishops and boasting about his arguments. So this simple man asked the bishops, as priests of God, to give him time to speak to the philosopher. Our holy bishops, seeing the man's simplicity and lack of education, tried to dissuade him from joining the debate lest he become a laughingstock for the wretched enemies of truth. Refusing to be deterred, he approached the philosopher and said to him In the name of Jesus Christ, god the word who always exists with the father, listen to true doctrine. And then he says the philosopher goes OK, speak.
Speaker 1:And then the saint continues there is one God who created the heavens, the earth, the sea and all that is in them. He also formed human beings from earth and brought everything into existence by his word and by the Holy Spirit. Because we know this word as the Son of God, philosopher, we worship him, confident that he took on flesh from a virgin to redeem us. He was born and became human Through the suffering of his flesh on the cross and through his death he freed us from eternal damnation. Through his resurrection, he obtained eternal life for us. We have the hope, now that he has ascended to heaven, that he will come again and judge all our deeds. Do you believe this, philosopher?
Speaker 1:The philosopher, as if he had no experience in debate, became speechless. He remained silent like a dumb or mute man. He could only say to him with a very weak voice I too think this is true. I disagree with nothing you said. The old man said to him if you believe this is true, philosopher, get up and follow me. Let's hurry to the church where you will receive the seal of this faith.
Speaker 1:The philosopher, directing his whole self towards true devotion to the God of all all, got up and followed the old man. Looking back, he addressed the other philosophers who had gathered in the audience. Listen, while I was zealous for arguments, I set my arguments against others. But when, instead of arguments, divine power emerged from the mouth of my adversary, my arguments could no longer withstand the power, for man cannot resist God. Therefore, if any of you can understand, as I have come to understand, then he will trust in Christ and should follow this old man through whom God has spoken. So the philosopher came to his senses, was enlightened and became a Christian. He rejoiced that he had been defeated by the old man. When the philosopher was baptised, accepted into the church of God, rested and exalted in the mighty works of God, the whole council rejoiced.