Shaun Groves
Let’s hold a few more parts of chapter 55 up against traditional church history and show the flaws in the theory that is espoused in Dan Brown’s book.
DA VINCI: “During this fusion of religions, Constantine needed to strengthen the new Christian tradition, and held a famous ecumenical gathering known as the Council of Nicea.” (Sir Teabing in ch. 55)
CHURCH HISTORY: The Council of Nicea was held in 325 and was called by Constantine to settle several disputes that were being debated in the church. The primary discussion was over the deity of Christ and the teachings of Arius, who taught that Jesus was not one with God and did not believe that Jesus was divine. The Council met for two months and was attended by 318 bishops from Eastern and Western Churches. One important note here is that there was no such thing as the ‘Roman Catholic Church’ at this point. The church was ‘catholic’ in the sense that it was universal but the schisms that created Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholic were still hundreds of years away. Many historians, and bishops of the time, were disturbed by the fact that Constantine called and led this Council. Many parts of Christianity still do not recognize the authority of the Council of Nicea because of the emperor’s role in the Council. However, the council’s influence on Christianity and heresy in the church is undeniable.
DA VINCI: “At this gathering (Council of Nicea)”, Teabing said, “many aspects of Christianity were debated and voted upon…and, of course, the divinity of Jesus.”
“I don’t follow. His divinity?” (Sophie)
“My dear,” Teabing declared, “until THAT moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet…a great and powerful man, but a MAN nonetheless. A mortal.” (ch. 55)
CHURCH HISTORY: Believing that Jesus was just a mortal until the Council of Nicea would have been news to John the Apostle (see John 10:30), Thomas the Apostle (see John 20:26-28), Justin Martyr, Polycarp, Clement, Ignatius, and Irenaeus. The divinity v. humanity of Christ was passionately debated in the first few centuries with opposing views to his deity coming in the forms of Sabellianism, Arianism, and Gnosticism. But to claim that nobody believed in the divinity of Christ before the Council of Nicea is ignoring 300 hundred of years of documented church history.
Read the rest of Brian’s post at ikonblog.
Anonymous says:
Excellent coverage. Allow me to also add that the Council did not take a vote–they wrote the Nicaean Creed and then voted assent to the creed–not to Jesus’ divinity. The creed was affirmed by 316 of the 318 delegates, with the dissenting 2 delegates being followers of Arius. Also, the root of the Arian heresy was not denying the divinity of Christ–he agreed that he was God–but that Arius taught that Christ wasn’t always God but became God, that He was not existent from eternity past. That’s why the Nicaean Creed says He is “eternally begotten of the Father, God from God…begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father.” It was never a vote on divinity–it was a response to the Arians saying that Christ was created and was not always God.
Anonymous says:
Thanks for the additional information, Seth. I haven’t had access to any of Arius’s writings, but that makes sense that his position was a bit more “hardline” than the position I described. Perhaps it is true that the two delegates who dissented from the Nicaean Creed were semi-Arians? I’ll have to do some more research. Either way, both parties would (and did) have a problem with the Creed.
It’s most certainly true that the Semi’s must have a problem reconciling the mechanics of Christ’s God/man “limbo.” Our doctrine of the Trinity solves most of these problems, but still leaves the hypostatic union. (Yikes. Let’s not get too far off-topic with that one.)
It’s interesting to note that Mormons, Muslims, and Jehovah’s Witnesses hold positions very close to that of the semi-Arians: they believe that Jesus was a man who was very good and perhaps even became Godlike. It’s a great witnessing point with them to go through the passages that show Christ’s divinity and get them to admit that He was either always God or never God.
AFRM, good points. I’m not familiar with Seballianism, but I don’t think you can say that the Creed had a problem–we can’t hope for our human attempts at synthesizing creedal affirmations of Scripture will ever be perfect. I’d say the Nicaean Creed is a pretty good one, really. But I must call you on this:
“Constantine is the one who called the council and helped write the creed”
Sure, Constantine called the council. But could you cite your sources for the fact that he authored part or all of the creed? I have not encountered any credible evidence that this was the case. In fact, I am under the impression that he relied completely on the delegation to write and affirm the statement.
Nobody’s saying that the Creed is perfect, but I would counter that it’s not tainted, either. I can unabashedly affirm everything it says, regardless of who wrote it. So what if Constantine had these ulterior motives or coerced the council into agreeing with him (which I don’t believe he did)? Even Paul was able to utilize truths spoken by secular poets (Acts 17:28), regardless of their motives or contexts.
Seth, it seems you with my skepticism of the “tainted” nature of the Nicaean Creed. I am not convinced, either, that Constantine had any role in the content of the Creed, either.
Great discussion!