The Christ Centred Cosmic Civilisation

Episode 102 - The Divine Essence: Debates and Decisions at Nicaea 325 CE

• Paul

Share episode

Send us a text

The fundamental question that nearly split Christianity in the 4th century wasn't abstract theology—it was intensely personal: Who exactly is Jesus Christ? At the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE, over 300 bishops gathered for an entire month to settle this question once and for all.

We dive deep into the eyewitness accounts of this pivotal council, exploring the theological battleground where Arian philosophers claimed Jesus was merely the greatest of created beings—a divine tool made by God to create everything else. Against this view stood bishops armed primarily with Scripture, demonstrating remarkable biblical fluency as they defended Christ's full divinity.

The debates reveal a fascinating pattern: while Arian philosophers relied heavily on rational arguments and clever philosophical constructs, orthodox bishops continually returned to biblical texts. Bishop Leontius brilliantly used Genesis' "Let us make man in our image" to show the Son as co-creator rather than creation. Eusebius of Caesarea, despite his complicated history with Arianism, delivered perhaps the most powerful argument when philosophers demanded he explain precisely how the Son is begotten: "Do not ask that how, philosopher, otherwise you will quickly fall headlong as you try to understand the unsearchable."

The culmination was the formulation of the Nicene Creed with its critical Greek term homoousios—declaring Jesus "of the same essence" as the Father. This wasn't merely theological hair-splitting; it established whether Christians worship Jesus as fully God or merely the most exalted creature. Emperor Constantine himself played a surprising role in championing this language, particularly influencing the initially hesitant Eusebius.

As we examine these ancient debates, we discover they're remarkably relevant today. The question remains: do we understand Jesus as eternally divine, or have we subtly diminished him to something less? Join us in exploring how this month-long council forever shaped Christian theology and why it still matters for faith today.

The theme music is "Wager with Angels" by Nathan Moore

Speaker 1:

Well, welcome to the next episode of the Christ-Centered Cosmic Civilization. And we're still at Nicaea In 325, from May the 20th to June the 19th it was. That's the month when they eventually produced the Nicene Creed, and we've now got to a stage in our investigations where we're digging into the arguments and debates and conversations that were happening at the council. And in the eyewitness account that I've been reading so much of although PJ has many more there's a big, huge, in-depth explanation of Arius with his philosophers and the arguments they make, and then the brilliant arguments that the biblical bishops make in reply to that, and I love how much they cite scripture. All of them cite scripture all the time, which is fantastic, and often the debates are even the philosophers will sometimes cite a scripture against the deity of Jesus. And then, of course, the bishops, who really know the Bible properly, explain the true meaning of those scriptures. So I'll give you a good example that comes quite early, where the philosophers are saying look, the true God, by which they mean the Father, created physical things through this Son, who was created in order to create. So the sun was created in order to create everything else. So yeah, they go, yeah, the could use this tool of the sun to create the universe. And then the answer given. I'll give you this example. This is by Bishop Leontius, and Eupsychius as well, but bishop leontius specifically. He notes that in, I'll quote now in genesis, the prophet moses called the son co-craftsman with god, the father, as we've already shown to you. And and he interestingly puts it like this, his proof of that is God said let us make man in our image and likeness. And then Leontes explains he naturally calls a person co-craftsman, not a tool. The wording God made man in the image of God, he made him male and female, he made them indicates their status as persons. By saying let us make man, he removes any notion of tools.

Speaker 1:

Take an even clearer, authentic passage which deals solely with the person of the Son and shows that he is the craftsman of all created beings. Now, here it's written in the book of Baruch, dictated by the prophet Jeremiah, but it's the language that you often get in the prophets. Isaiah says this sort of thing, jeremiah says it. You often get in the prophets. Isaiah says this sort of thing, jeremiah says it. And here it is. It's essentially saying you know the one who created the heavens and the earth, established the, the world on its stable foot stations, who calls out the stars by name, all of that, that, that is the lord god, the, the, the everlasting god. He's the one who created the heavens and the earth.

Speaker 1:

We can think of things like in isaiah 40 and so on. Uh, lots of times in the psalms also that the creator of the heavens and the earth is the lord god. Um, so here's another one, isaiah. He said with the point being can you see the point he keeps making? He's like saying, oh, so you're saying the Son created the heavens and the earth, but you're saying that the creator of the heavens and the earth is a tool, who is a creature created by God. And they're like whoa, hang on, moses thinks that the Son is a co-creator with the Father. Let us make. But then, like in Jeremiah and in Isaiah and in many places, the one who creates, the creator of the heavens and the earth, is clearly God, the Lord, god. So here's another example. Isaiah says to Israel Do you not know, have you not heard? God who established the ends of the earth is the eternal God, isaiah 40, verse 28. So the God who created the earth is the eternal God, not a divine creature, who is temporal and has only existed for a finite amount of time. Rather, the Bible literally says that he has always existed. So that's a fantastic answer.

Speaker 1:

That's typical, though, of how they do it, that the philosophers will say the stuff using philosophical arguments, using philosophical arguments, and then the bishops answer from Scripture and assert the truth of Scripture over against the philosophers, and it's brilliant to learn how they handle the Scriptures. There's loads of great depths in there, all about Old Testament prophecies, um, all about old testament prophecies and um, but also a lot of it comes down. There's a big section that comes down to proverbs 8, verse 22, when, in the proverb, it's talking about wisdom. And how wisdom was this craftsman who co-creates with the father at the beginning of all things? And it says the Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for his works. So who is this wisdom that is there as the creator at the beginning of all things? And so the philosophers are saying that is God, the son, and it says that he was created at the beginning. He was created at the beginning. So how is that going to be explained?

Speaker 1:

And it's interesting how some really deep explanations are given about how can wisdom be created at all? That's one question. So one of the ways they go is to say well, can there have been a time when God the Father had no wisdom? And obviously that cannot be true. So the wisdom of God must have always existed. You cannot have the father having no wisdom, because then how can he think properly or make any decision? He's obviously always had wisdom and logic with him, always.

Speaker 1:

So if there is any wisdom that is ever created and Eusebius, the good Eusebius of Caesarea, he makes this point he's saying look, there's the divine wisdom that obviously always exists, because the father cannot be wisdomless, foolish. That's obviously ridiculous. So if there is any wisdom that is created, the only wisdom that is created is kind of human wisdom or the kind of wisdom that creatures have. So he said, you could argue that there is a wisdom that's created when humans are created and that's created when the universe, when humans are created, and that's human wisdom is created when humans are created. So you could argue like solomon has lots of human wisdom, but and that you could argue that you know when humans are created, this human wisdom is thereby created, and that's so. That idea is there is the logos, the divine, eternal logos, and then we are logoy, like little examples of of wisdom or logic, and so you could argue that, but his argument is so he may.

Speaker 1:

He makes that point. If you're gonna have any created wisdom, it cannot be god's own wisdom. Um, that and so. But he also makes this point um, oh, yeah, he also. There's a great point. Um, oh, he makes a point about how jesus is, uh, loved by the father before the foundation of the world John 17, 24. And that's quite an interesting thing, and how he comments on that and brings that into the discussion of Proverbs 8, 22,. And how there is this cycle of day and night that has a beginning, but Jesus is before all that. Day and night that has a beginning, but Jesus is before all that, and that's quite good. But listen to this.

Speaker 1:

We found this particularly powerful argument from Eusebius, who says here, now, listen to this. It's on what basically the philosophers do is say. What basically the philosophers do is say OK, look, just explain to us exactly how the son is begotten of the father. Then, because you, eusebius, seem to be describing that this is this eternally begotten son of the father, but there wasn't a time when that happened and it's always happening, and you can't. We just don't know what you're talking about. It doesn't make sense. You need to, eusebius, give us a clear, rational, straightforward explanation of what you mean when you say the son is begotten of the father. That's the kind of they kind of just go explain this, how this occurred.

Speaker 1:

And then eusebius pamphili, that's our favorite guy, eusebius of, uh, cesarea, he just says do not ask that how, philosopher, otherwise, as we told you many times and solemnly declared at the beginning of all this, you will quickly fall headlong as you try to understand the unsearchable. So let's, what I'm going to do now is read this whole section here. That's really powerful. Read this whole section here. That's really powerful. And sometimes, pj, you've told me that people have accused Eusebius that he's maybe a bit of an Aryan. He's not even completely on side. Is that true?

Speaker 2:

Well, yeah, people are. So Athanasius says it because they often get into fights over the coming years, and I guess we'll see that in future episodes. Um, so he and a lot of people, when they look at nice asf, they just read athanasius, and so then you're just getting one perspective about an event that included thousands of people and hundreds of bishops, you know. Um, so it's not not quite correct to do that. And and also, he did shelter Arius. When Arius had been kicked out of Africa, he'd sheltered him in Caesarea, and so that inevitably got people.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, Athanasius never forgave him for that.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, and we'd thought how Alexander had this prophecy that, if you know, if you let arius back in, it's going to cause trouble. And so heraclus died because he let aries back in. So there's a lot of like almost superstition about it in alexandra so that was considered a very seriously bad thing to do. But you know, and saint eusebius writes all these letters kind of defending arius and some of those early creeds. We thought before arius wrote these early creeds that were cleverly worded to sound like do not give the full perspective of what he believed. So he was an earlier defender of arius, so that there is, that is just kind of a fact. But then it's like so was Constantine, and so were a lot of people, because, as we've thought, we've said in a lot of the episodes, for a lot of people they found Arius and his theology attractive because he seemed to be really clearly defining distinction between the persons at a time when modalism was totally.

Speaker 1:

That was the big threat, wasn't it? Yeah, yeah. And if you're just hanging out with Unitarians all the time and then suddenly a dude who's really strong on the clear distinctions of the three persons, you would initially go what a breath of fresh air this guy is.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, yeah, so, yeah, that is that. And then as you read his church history, his church history and loads of his other books, it's clear he didn't believe in all the terrible things arius did, um, but he for a while dug his heels in and maybe even said some things he shouldn't have said up until the council on. And then, after arius has written the failure. When you read all the terrible stuff Arius just publicly says, then Eusebius is like he realizes and then he just goes full-on against Arius. So there are some things people bring up these quotes of him like trying to defend Arius, and they're like what do you make of that? And it's like, yeah, he thought the big issue was modalism, so all this language about defending distinction, he finds so, even when arius, when he first says what constantine also felt was a thoughtless answer to a to a thoughtless question, uh, so arius is like, yeah, he would say like something like there was a time when he was not, but before time, because how else would you express the generation of you know, he said something like that. That sound, when people bring it up, very alarming.

Speaker 2:

But then you have to read all of your saviour stuff and realise he doesn't believe that he's trying to come up with a defence for someone he feels at that time has made an honest mistake, because he was called up on the spot and we covered that in a previous episode exactly the feeling people had about Alexanderlexander and his process of getting arias to say his personal opinions and some people felt he'd goaded him into it. So some of eusebius's early defensive areas are in that context, which we have tried to give before, and so we have to remember that. And so then when we read loads of stuff he puts out that really is totally contrary, contrary to, uh, arianism that does demand more of our attention and people who just say he's a heretic and they don't give it much more explanation, they've really got to deal with it. So there's a good explanation for why he says this stuff he shouldn't have done. There is a good explanation.

Speaker 1:

But even if you say he shouldn't have done. It's like if he was omniscient he shouldn't have said that. It's like, yeah, but he didn't know all the facts and he's just saying. He is a guy who seems to be really good on this, like divine distinctions between the persons, and I'm sort of getting a lot of stick from unitarians, I don't know. Maybe, like we all say things and we phrase things badly and we've not thought it through. Surely he's a good guy who just hasn't said, thought things through properly and then over. You know, it's not very long before he's like oh no, actually, uh, this is a bit worrying. And then all, when it all comes out, eusebius then doesn't defend him he's like, oh no, he's well dodgy I mean to be honest, I literally have done this exact thing.

Speaker 1:

I remember when I used to go to speaker's corner and debate with muslims a lot about the deity of jesus and the identity of jesus, and I very vividly remember there was a time when there was a guy came who was really strong, that jesus is jehovah yahweh. And I was like, oh, that is so good, like he's really clear on that, absolutely brilliant. And so I was literally directing people to listen to this guy and this guy said, yeah, I got even material on this, if you want, and you know, if you want, I'll hand some of that out. And I was like, oh, this guy's so helpful, brilliant. And I think it even went on for like a couple of weeks or something. And then someone, an older christian, had said he can't, that you can't have anything to do with that guy. He's like incredibly dodgy. And I was defending him. I was like, nah, he's really helpful on this. Jesus is jehovah yahweh, all this other, have you read this stuff? It's like really, really on on it. And this person's like, no, honestly, I know this guy, he doesn't even go to any church or anything.

Speaker 1:

And then, as it all came out, he was a unitarian. He was a different kind, he was a jesus unitarian. So he was like jesus is jehovah and there isn't. There were the members of the trinity. There's no father, there's no spirit, it's just jesus. And so then I was like, oh my goodness, like I was so keen to get an answer to this one problem of all the debate. I was getting my, you know, getting absolutely battered physically and mentally and spiritually over, like jesus is not god and this guy's like, oh, jesus is god. So I was really pleased with that. And then, and I didn't know, oh yeah, he's good on that one thing, but he's terrible, like an arch heretic on the, on the identity of the father and the spirit. Because then he later just went oh no, yeah, god, the father, that is jesus too, and then the spirit no, that's jesus. And I was like what? Like like be gone, you arch fiend. So I've literally been caught by that same thing that you're under a lot of pressure and then someone says exactly what you want them to say and you're like, oh, this guy's good. And then either someone at the time says, oh no, hang on, listen, there's more to this guy than you know, or it it becomes it once. Once that person explains what they're saying and then you're like oh so I'd be much more sensitive to Eusebius in that, but let's hear him from his own mouth.

Speaker 1:

If people are making bad accusations against you, I mean, only an idiot would do that what sort of a person Are they saying? Oh, I've never said anything incorrect, I've never rushed to approve of something or I've never made a judgment that was wrong. Like how foolish they are. They'll have to meet him one day and just be like how should that? I don't know. Some of these people may never meet him for obvious reasons, but nevertheless, lovely Eusebius, we love him because I like him, because he's just a real person and he's excited about the right things. And when you read his church history, he's so excited about the identity of Jesus in all the scriptures. But here's an example of him.

Speaker 1:

So the philosophers have said you must give a full explanation, explain how the father begets the son. And so he says look, you can't. If you try to do this, you will fall over as you try to explain the unexplainable. And then I'm going to just read you this Now think you know what the issue is is against the Arians. This is what Eusebius says.

Speaker 1:

If in speaking of the unbegotten, that's the father, remember? So if in speaking of the unbegotten it were permissible to ask how, then in speaking of the begotten it would be permissible to ask how? So that's a great point, isn it? You just say you, you wouldn't say, oh well, how is the father unbegotten? Because then the philosophers themselves love to make the point. Oh, you know, there's, it's utterly, utterly, inscrutably incomprehensible is the being of the one. And he's like well, yeah, same thing, because the son is the same being. That's the point, so just be. He does the unbegotten and the beyond, but the both equally. Status of incomprehensibly divine. So he just takes that as his opener, eusebius.

Speaker 1:

And then he says since the unbegotten is not, is not possible to investigate, the unbegotten is not. It is not possible to investigate the unbegotten how, as how he is unbegotten. Neither is it possible to investigate the begotten how it is that he's begotten. Stop seeking the unsearchable, for you will not find it. Seek what may be found, and you will find it. If you would investigate who, from whom could you learn? The earth, it didn't yet exist. The sea, the waters haven't been created. The heavens, they've not been made. Sun and stars? They haven't been created. Angels and archangels they did not yet exist, for the sun made even them. What about time? The only begotten sun was before time.

Speaker 1:

And then, listen this do not apply the standards of things which have not always existed to him, who has always existed. I mean, that's the strongest anti-Aryan statement, that's the exact thing that the Aryan controversy is about. And Arius is just coming out unbelievably full on. Do not apply the standards of things which have not always existed to him, who has always existed. The unbegotten father is incomprehensible. The son, incomprehensibly begotten of him, is incomprehensible. So in that context, that's a strong, a really full on strong that he, they are of the same essence, the same state is the same level, the same genus, however, we want to talk about.

Speaker 1:

And then he carries on like that and, you know, has so many brilliant points about the. He literally says when he's describing how the Son made things and he describes that they have the same essence and equality of honour in the blessed, indescribable Trinity. I mean, honestly, he is so good at articulating the Trinity and explaining it from the scriptures. There's so much of it. I could just keep reading you more and more, eusebius, but I mustn't? I'll just read you his final conclusion to this section. He just says he was and is God. He became man for the plan of salvation, taking on flesh and being born of a virgin. Because of his love for mankind, the father begot a son worthy of an equal to himself as God. The father who begot him, wow. So look at that. Equal in divinity. He keeps saying it, and so strongly so.

Speaker 1:

Anyway, in the these notes of these, like these accounts of what happened during the Council of Nicaea, lots of it is where the philosophers are saying one thing, and then you get all these meditations from Scripture explaining what the Scriptures say and asserting that Jesus is God in exactly the same way or has the same equality or same perfection or same divine nature. Sometimes it's said like that Bishop Leontius gets quoted quite a bit, eusebius gets quoted quite a bit and others do as well. We've got to go past it all. Although it's all worth reading and there's lovely meditations on Scripture, the Gospels, isaiah, the Psalms get a lot of Isaiah and the Psalms get. And then Moses gets quite a bit of treatment also.

Speaker 1:

But when all that is done they get to the end and there's some brilliant presentations of Jesus and the work that he accomplished. It's almost as if, when they're so clear about his person, at the end of the things, they talk more about his work and how, through his incarnation, his life, his death and resurrection, salvation is accomplished. And there's some absolutely wonderful things there, going back to the teaching of Jesus himself, also good stuff about how he is the second Adam and so on. So the Holy Scriptures, they keep saying teaches this. They keep saying teach us this, and this is the apostolic faith of the church, which the Lord himself entrusted to church from the beginning. Okay, so there it is. And then it says I'm going to go on now to what happened. Like after all these debates have happened. Like after all these debates have happened, constantine was there, like listening, and if you but? And eusebius would say, guiding also, is that true? Was he guiding? Well, yeah, absolutely.

Speaker 2:

He gives an example uh although should we give it yet or like but he gives an example all right, we'll save that.

Speaker 1:

We'll save that then, um to some amazing contribution from the emperor. But here it says, the God-loving emperor, who also attended most of the council, was himself in the audience, greatly pleased. He glorified God on hearing such godly doctrine, rejoicing at the agreement of our bishops, he was overjoyed in the spirit. That's always what he's looking for, constantine, and he wants to make sure they. He's like why it's all so obvious? It is obvious to constantine, you know, there's the father, there's the son, there's the spirit, all equally, equally, god working together in everything they do. We all know this. Like, can't we just get on with it? And it's like, yeah, not everyone was as quick to see things with the penetrating brilliance of Constantine, equal with the apostles. So, rejoicing at the agreement of the bishops, he was overjoyed in the spirit. It was his ambition that no one, great or small, would disagree with the saving confession that they arrive at. Um, so then it's what the decision is. After all these discussions and arguments, it says after extensive, pious deliberation, finished, all our people saw the need to define God's consubstantiality within the church's faith, as our holy fathers, who came after the apostles, passed down this faith, namely confessing that the Son and the Holy Spirit have the same essence as the Father and the Holy Spirit have the same essence as the Father. So all the holy bishops assembled at Nicaea affirmed this faith. The assembled holy priests and confessors, the praiseworthy God-loving emperor and the whole multitude of believers who were with arius, um, they weren't happy, they weren't rejoicing in the spirit and um, but he was like, apparently it says arius was delighted to be with them, so that there's this little group in the corner who are kind of almost mocking and like rejoicing in the heresy. So, as there's joy in the, the presentation of the trinitarian faith, arius and his people are sort of like obviously laughing in a suitably evil way in the corner and they're observed being like that. But then then it just says they were anathematized, their ungodly opinion and the blasphemous words and thoughts which they had directed against the son of god, saying that he is from things which do not exist and he didn't always exist. And they said that the son of god is capable of choosing evil or good and that he's a creature and a work. So they even said that he's like the devil and that there's jesus could also have fallen and become a fallen son. Yeah, they actually told that. So you're like what? So, yeah, um, so obviously the holy council, it says here, anathematized them and all these thoughts, refusing to listen to their ungodly opinion, their insanity and their blasphemous words. And so the council formally tore up the document that contained the written nonsense, and the bishops unanimously summarized the content of the orthodox faith to uh, in such a way that everyone could understand it, and they formulated what we now call the nicene creed. And so we've arrived at it.

Speaker 1:

Um, now, uh, we we're kind of up to our time, but is this a good time to think about what? Because the wording of it. I'm sure anyone who's listening will be able to find it and then they can look at it carefully. I'll just read it briefly and then I'll just stop on the key words. So it says here the exposition of the Catholic apostolic faith. On the key words. So it says here the exposition of the Catholic apostolic faith presented by the Synod of Nicaea under the God-loving Emperor Constantine, during the consulate of the illustrious men Paul and St Julian, in the year 636 after Alexandria. So that's 325 in our reckoning, on the 19th of June. So that's interesting, isn't it? The 19th of June in Nicaea, capital of Bithynia. So it's taken them just short of the month, basically almost exactly a full month.

Speaker 1:

And then this is the creed they come up with, and it's one we know well. Although most of us would probably not say the creed as it was formulated at Nicaea, we'd say it what is called the Nicene Constantinopolitan Creed, because later in the century they gather uh, in order to formulate the creed in a slightly different form and add a little bit more to it. But the way that this is the form it was that it was locked in at the council of nicaea and it says this we believe in one god, the father almighty, maker of all things seen and unseen. We, we believe in one Lord, jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father as only begotten, that is, from the essence of the Father, god from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not created, consubstantial with the Father, homoousion of the sameousia with the Father. Through him all things were made in heaven and on earth. And now you know, because of what we said, through him all things were made in heaven and earth. To the people at Nicaea that means obviously he's God, because in the Psalms and the Prophets it's constantly asserted that the one who made the heavens and the earth is the Lord God, everlasting God, eternal God, so that for them to say that Jesus created the heavens and the earth is a strong assertion of his full divinity. Anyway, for us men and for our salvation, he came down, was incarnate and became human. He suffered and was buried and rose. On the third day he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again to judge the living and the dead. We believe in his Holy Spirit. Interestingly, the word his there I found quite interesting.

Speaker 1:

And then, just finally, it says the Catholic Apostolic Church anathematises those who say he did not always exist. Before he was begotten he did not exist and that he was made from things which did not exist, or who claim that the son of god is of a different substance or essence or is created, changeable or mutable. And that changeable or mutable, as we've just noted, is important because the arians were literally saying jesus could have fallen in the way that satan could have fallen, um, and that they you, you know, because as a creature, you know, satan was this amazingly high, divine, angelic creature kind of figure. And yet he fell, and the Aryans were like, yeah, the same could have happened to this son guy. And so they have to get in. He's not changeable or mutable, particularly like pushing back against that urian stuff.

Speaker 1:

And then it ends with this is the faith which our holy fathers at nicaea, the orthodox bishops, set forth, primarily against arius, who blasphemouslyie the founder of Manichaeism, and that's interesting, isn't it? Because you know they're taking Marnie down, and then Augustine's going to go after going to become a Manichae later in his life, and you'll know that. So you know it didn't completely destroy Manichaeism, but they realised we've got to take that down. Valentinus, he's like one of the arch Gnostics, marcian, and he's like way early arch heretic from the 2nd century, so they regarded this Nicene Creed as taking out all of these famous heretics and every heresy which arose against the Catholic Apostolic Church. There it is Now, then.

Speaker 1:

The key bit there, though, was that word consubstantial homoousios with the Father, and all the agro was about that, and you know, we did a whole episode, wouldn't we, about why people were nervous about it, because it's a word that had been used by heretics and Gnostics, and if you say he's homoousius of the father, are you? Is that not like making it seem as if he's exactly the same as the father, and is that not heading in a Unitarian direction? Are you going to lose the distinction between the father and the son? And all these people were people were nervous and said we can't use a word like that. And Eusebius did he think that?

Speaker 2:

well, yeah, it's quite interesting, um, what gets mentioned about this. So there was, eusebius had his own creed that he had in Caesarea and that had been used at this church, um, for for quite a while. And he presented it at Ankara and the bishops there really liked it and so they basically drew that up in a way that all of them could just say together and Eusebius was really proud of that, really happy of that, and it didn't have homoousion, it just said of equal substance to the father, or, like you know, begotten of the substance of the father but didn't have homoousion, um, so he had that. But then he says and it just on that.

Speaker 1:

It in many of the writings, like when I read a, I read a lot of Gregory of Nyssa, but a lot of those writings of the church fathers. For them, the proof of the divinity of the son is simply, he is begotten of the father because, you know, a tiger gives birth to a tiger kind of thing. So if he is begotten of the father he is the exact same specie, genus, type, quality, essence. You know, he has the same dna or whatever you all the different languages we could use to describe that. But whatever the father is, the son is. If the son is begotten of the father.

Speaker 1:

So for eusebius, he's like saying I would just say that because that is just what the exact language the bible uses. And if you were like, that says everything we need to say, and so you, you can see why he's like that's nailed it. Because the arians don't want to say that really they go. They might you, they might say yeah, yeah, I can say that, but they don't, they can't, they don't really want to say it because they know no, he's been created, he's not of the, he's not begotten of the father. So eusebius, uh yeah, he's like yeah, this is good and people did enjoy it, yeah so he does say.

Speaker 2:

On this faith, meaning the creed he presented being publicly put forth by us, no room for contradicting appeared, but our most pious emperor, before anyone else, testified that it was most orthodox. He confessed, moreover, that such were his own sentiments, and he advised all present to agree to it and to subscribe to its articles and to send to them, but with the insertion of the single word homoousion. And so he, in this letter this is a letter to his church in this letter explains how he ended up thinking all right, I guess it's all right, and his explanation for it. But uh, uh, sosaman notes. So we all the other ones mentioned those 17 bishops that didn't sign it. And they all the other ones don't mention Eusebius. But Sosaman, who's often quite positive with Eusebius, he does mention um, okay, I found it here. Um, this is what Sosaman says. Okay, I found it here. This is what Sosaman says.

Speaker 2:

This decision was sanctioned by Eusebius of Nicomedia, theognis of Nicaea, maris of Chalcedon, patrophilus of Scythopolis, secundus of Ptolemaeus in Libya. Eusebius Pamphilus, however, withheld his assent for a little while but, on further examination, assented. So he does note that. So Eusebius kind of gives the impression he didn't take all that long. Sussman thinks it might have taken a bit longer than he likes to admit that he was really opposed to this Homo eustensis. So, as we noted, he was super nervous about modalism, about more than almost anything else. And so this word, word which had been condemned in antioch, in this council of antioch and I think caesaria was involved in that. So there is always this like feeling, it's like all right, we all just agreed no one can ever use this word and we've just decided, uh, but partly because constantine recommended it and Eusebius does love Constantine and Constantine's explained his thoughts about it to him, exactly what he means by the word and everything, what it's not suggesting, and with all that in mind, eventually he does sign it.

Speaker 1:

But Eusebius, of all the Orthodox bishops, does seem to take the longest, the longest you see, um, I find myself like, uh, people who know me and know my view of god, the son jesus no, I it's, I, I, uh, like cannot more strongly emphasize my belief in the full divinity of the sun and I I'm known for going overboard almost in my ecstasies about the you know, all the fullness of god and everything is in him and he, you know, and who he is, and everything like that. But I think I'd feel a lot like eusebius because, um, if you are battling modalism all the time, and then there's this word being floated around, a word that has opened the door and been used by modalists, and people are saying let's just say that they're all kind of identically the same and things like that, and you're like, oh like, let's not do that. And in my experience of this I have I have not encountered many tritheists in my theological career, but I have encountered many people who think they're trinitarian but to me they sound so unitarian because when it they just, for example, just use the word god all the time and hardly ever say Father, son and Spirit and almost never use the word Jesus. So I meet people like that who claim to be oh no, we're totally. You know Trinity, my, oh, totally.

Speaker 1:

But when I listen to them the way they speak, but when I listen to them the way they speak, they don't really indwell a theological worldview in which there is this father who sends the son in the power of the spirit, and that there are these three. I always hear them just go God, god, god, god, god. So I'm like, oh, there's some logic deep. Them, that is, is kind of swallowing up the three and and with something that there's a kind of one thing that's kind of constantly eating up the three and although when they think about it, the three come back and come out of this pool of oneness, they pull the three up out of the pool again and they go, oh no, look, see, the three are still here. I'm like, yeah, but why do they keep getting submerged under the oneness, your oneness soup? Why is it that you don't like that?

Speaker 1:

When you read these church fathers the real ones, the good ones, the 300, they're just the father, son and spirit they're always speaking about the three and it merges from them all the time and whatever scriptures they're addressing, whether Old Testament or New Testament, it's father, son, spirit, jesus the son, the logos you know. So they're absolutely Trinitarian, absolutely the one God is three. But like, I kind of feel that problem. I feel the problem of homoousios, like why you say, because I constantly hear, particularly in the Western theological tradition, people who just talk about God and they don't unless they're pushed or unless the topic is specifically the Trinity or something. They're just not Trinitarian. And so when they're saying it's really important that we emphasise homoousion, that the Father, son and Spirit are all absolutely identical, I'm like, oh, I believe that they are all equally divine. I just don't know whether you really get that. You know.

Speaker 1:

So I have the soft spot for Eusebius' caution and that he was probably worried if we use this word. Might it not be the case that at some point in the future the strong threeness of God is going to be weakened? And I might have, if I went back in time, I'll say well, you're right to be concerned that there is going to be Unitarianism, is not going to disappear and it's going to be a perennial problem, at least for the Western church. I don't know if Unitarianism has been a problem for Eastern and for African and Asian churches and things, but it certainly has for European churches.

Speaker 1:

Now I do love the fact that it's when Constantine because Constantine is like you know, eusebius couldn't love him more than he does and he literally thinks he's prophesied in Scripture and he's like the greatest thing the world's ever known and that the miracle of Constantine is equal to any miracle performed in the Bible.

Speaker 1:

Does he even think it's like equal to the resurrection or something? I think he says things like that. And so, of course, when Constantine for who like to Constantine? He just feels the doctrine of Trinity is totally simple. You know, I mean, whenever he speaks anything about the Father, the Son and the Spirit, it does look as if it's all transparently clear to Constantine and he's absolutely clear on the full divinity of the father, son and spirit and how they operate. So I can imagine that when Constantine just says, oh yeah, I love your creed, mate, absolutely spot on. But I just think the right word to use is how you said it Like Eusebius is suddenly like yeah, no, totally yeah, yeah, like. Actually, I kind of always thought that, you know, because, of course, if Constantine likes it, it's got to be the right word.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, I do love that. And that is a bit of him, because we thought about Hoseus and how his input wasn't so good. But with Constantine we do have a Westerner who gives some proper, clear insight. That does help, isn't it? That's quite clear. But you can definitely imagine how Eusebius is feeling with Hoseus to begin with, when he's like, oh, there's literally just one will. That's like, oh, there's literally just one will, that's like one.

Speaker 2:

And then he says you know all of this how he would. His alarm bells are off. And then, once Amosian gets suggested, he's suddenly like even more alarmed. And I think if it were anyone else so even though even with Constantine it does take a while to accept If it were anyone else suggesting yeah, he couldn't be moved.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, but with Constantine it's equivalent to a direct word from the heavenly throne room. Because I know I love that, though that the Lord is so gentle and thought we've got to get Eusebius on side because he's going to write the most amazing church history ever, and so we've got to get him on side. The only person who's going to be able to do this, I'll just get my mate, constantine, to do it, and then, of course, that's it. He can't ever go against constantine. I love that. Uh well, on that note we'll finish. We love the word homoousia. We do, like he and jesus. Of course, the son is of the same being as the father, but I always want to just remember why Eusebius was hesitant because he just thought we mustn't give any ammo for Unitarians, and let's remember that.