04: Constantine, Controversy & Councils

THE LAST AND GREATEST PERSECUTION

When Diocletian came to the throne in 303 A.D., the church was hopeful because both his wife and daughter were Christians.

However, Diocletian hoped to revitalize the Roman Empire. To do that he wanted to impose a uniform order on the empire from customs to the military to religion –

And what did imposing a uniform order on religion mean?

It meant worshipping the traditional Roman gods. He issued an edict near Easter in 303 designed to end Christianity once and for all as a menace to Roman unity.

He also issued an edict setting maximum prices for merchants in an effort to combat inflation showing he was as bad an economist as he was a theologian.

At first Christians were not killed. However, when Diocletian retired to his estate in Split (modern Croatia), his successor Galerius turned up the heat and ordered all Christians who refused to recant to be executed.

However, so many Christians refused to recant that he finally decided he could not stamp out Christianity so he relented and stopped the persecution in 311 A.D.

Coincidentally, he’s become ill with a painful disease and some had suggested to him that this was punishment from God for his persecution of the church. Given that in his edict ending the persecution he ordered Christians to pray for him it seems likely this played into his decision.

THE RISE OF CONSTANTINE

Then, in the year 312 an amazing thing happened, the soon to be Roman emperor Constantine, embraced Christianity. The story goes that just prior to the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, outside Rome, he saw either a vision or had a dream, or perhaps both, depending on who you talk to, where he saw the sign of the cross and was given the message "with this sign, you will conquer."

As a result, Constantine added the Chi-Rho or Labarum, which is a combination of the first two Greek letters of Christ’s name, to the shields of his men. In the next day’s battle he defeated his enemy Maxentius, who drowned in the Tiber River, and secured his place as ruler of the western half of the empire. And more importantly for our story, he attributed that victory to the God of the Christians.

Just a year later in 313, in concert with his brother-in-law Licenius, who ruled in part of the east, he made one of the most important proclamations in church history – the Edict of Milan.

This edict made all religions legal in the Roman Empire – in the west initially but eventually in the entire empire. After 300 years Christianity was now legal and Christians were free to worship openly. Not only that, but the edict was proactive in restoring lost freedoms and property. Many were released from prison and from forced labor in mines and property confiscated from Christians and churches was returned at government expense.

To put this in perspective, for longer than the United States has been a nation, Christianity had been marginalized and persecuted to varying degrees, now, all that was over.

One of the burning questions of history is “Was Constantine a Christian?”

Some claim Constantine embraced Christianity as much for political benefit as out of genuine conviction. However, one could argue that there wasn’t really much political benefit to embracing Christianity at this time.

It’s also pointed out that while he did not permit his own image to be worshipped in the temple, he allowed the imperial cult to remain, and continued to practice some pagan rites. He also maintained images of pagan deities on his coinage for more than a decade. However, you could also make the point that conversion doesn’t give us immediate, comprehensive theological knowledge and that putting away the old man is a process.

Most damning, he had his wife and a son by a previous marriage both murdered because he suspected they were having an affair. But then, there’s King David.

It’s also pointed out that Constantine was not baptized until many years later when close to death.

Peter Leithart in his book “Defending Constantine” argues for Constantine’s genuine conversion and does so partly by examining the kind of governance Constantine pursued, the kinds of laws he passed, etc. In other words did he govern like an opportunistic pagan imposter or did he appear to be governing out of a worldview informed by the scriptures?

For example, he outlawed the spectacle of killing for sport in the arena – a Roman custom for centuries. He undermined the double standard of Roman sexual customs and appears to be the first emperor to legislate against rape.[i]

He also issued several edicts condemning child exposure (the Roman equivalent of abortion) and pledged government support to families who could not afford their children to discourage abandoning them.

Justo Gonzalez says of Constantine:

“For him the Christian God was a very powerful being who would support him as long as he favored the faithful. Therefore, when Constantine enacted laws in favor of Christianity, and when he had churches built, what he sought was not the goodwill of Christians, but rather the goodwill of their God…This interpretation of Constantine’s faith is supported by his own statements, which reveal a sincere man whose understanding of the Christian faith was meager.”[ii]

Whatever the answer to that question, the impact of Constantine’s embrace of Christianity had a profound impact on the church and on western civilization for hundreds of years to come.

So the church had survived persecution, could she now survive victory, having a place at the table?

THREE QUESTIONS, THREE (REALLY FOUR) COUNCILS

There was at least one advantage to the Christianization of the Roman emperor and eventually the empire itself - once the church had relative peace from without, she had time to deal with some internal issues – most of which were of a theological nature. When the police are banging on your door and dragging you off to be burned at the stake, theological precision is often not your primary concern. People were not persecuted (at this point) for having divergent views on the Trinity but for the simple confession that Jesus is Lord and Caesar is not.

As we mentioned in the first class, one of the benefits of learning church history is that we also learn some theology because we’re able to examine issues our spiritual ancestors struggled with and see how we got where we are today.

During the fourth and fifth centuries the issue of who / what Christ was (in other words His nature) and how to describe Him came to the forefront - moving beyond “Jesus is Lord” to what exactly that means. When we hold that confession, what are we saying about Christ? In theology this is called Christology.

Again this was because heretical views had begun to circulate and Christians were forced to think about what they believed and why they believed it and to document those things.

So there are three questions I want us to think about this evening and four church councils that addressed those questions during the fourth and fifth centuries:

· Is Christ divine?

· Is Christ human?

· If yes to both, how are those two elements combined and what language or terms do we use to describe Him?

THE COUNCIL OF NICEA (325 A.D.)

Is Christ divine?

Controversy began around 318 when a church elder in Alexandria named Arius, proposed that Jesus had not existed eternally but had been created and could therefore not be divine like the Father. He based his belief, at least partially, on the scriptural references describing Christ as “begotten.”

The bishop over the city, Alexander, and one of his deacons, Athanasius, vehemently opposed this false teaching. In 321, a synod called at Alexandria deposed Arius and condemned his doctrine.

But, Arius would not go quietly. His supports took to the streets of Alexandria chanting the Arian jingle “there was a time when the Son was not,” and demanding that he be reinstated.[iii]Soon other bishops in other cites who sympathized with Arias were brought into the fray including Eusebius of Nicomedia, a relative of the Emperor Constantine.

Things quickly got out of hand. One historian noted: In every city “bishop was contending against bishop, and the people were contending against one another, like swarms of gnats fighting in the air.”[iv] This teaching, as false teaching does, was causing division in the church.

This did not set will with Constantine, who by now was sole ruler of the Roman world. He wasn’t that worried about the theology truth be told but he saw threats to the unity of the church as threats to the unity of the empire.

So, in order to combat this disunity, in 325, he called a council of bishops to decide the matter. They met in a town called Nicaea. This was the first ecumenical council of the church and is remembered today as the Council of Nicaea from which the Nicene Creed originated.

Some 300 bishops from throughout the empire met at Nicaea to decide the Arian question. Eusebius of Nicomedia presented the Arian position. He assumed the only reason Arianism was controversial was because it had been misunderstood.

He thought once people heard the position laid out logically they would embrace it. He was wrong. Turns out the reason people had not opposed it more than they had was because they did not fully understand its implications.

Eusebius, unfortunately for him, did an excellent job of explaining it. Once he explained it clearly, opposition was immediate and strong. Once he asserted, before this gathering of bishops, many of whom had faced persecution for the faith, that the Word of God was a creature, a created being, the gathered bishops began to drown out Eusebius with cries of “You lie!” “Blasphemy!” and “Heresy!” It is said his speech was snatched from his hands, torn to shreds and trampled underfoot.[v]

In the end, those gathered at Nicaea rejected Arius’ doctrine overwhelmingly with all but a few of the bishops in attendance signing the Nicene Creed, which was the document that resulted from the council.

So to the question “Is Christ divine?” Nicaea replied with a resounded “yes!”

The language that was included to describe Christ is that He was “the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; 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.”

Why is this so important?

· Only God can save sinners (Luke 5:21-26)

· Jesus is God

· Jesus can save sinners

THE (FIRST) COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE (381 A.D.)

Is Christ human? (Also established the full deity of the Holy Spirit)

Despite Arianism’s seeming defeat at Nicaea, it continued to hold sway in the church to varying degrees over the next several decades – even being embraced by some of Constantine’s successors. The emperor Valens was an Arian and is reported to have martyred 80 orthodox priests by setting them adrift in a burning boat. [vi]

You can see as you go through this era that there was no settled Christian belief in a lot of areas so this was an era of Christianity getting its theological legs so to speak.

Nicaea affirmed Christ as fully God, but soon another group of heretical theologians began to make mischief. One group, led by Apollinaris, denied that Christ had a human soul, thus pressing the second big question of is Christ human. He was opposed by a man named Gregory of Nazianzus.

At the same time, another group known as the Pneumatomachians, or Fighters Against the Spirit, denied the full divinity of the Holy Spirit.

Both of these naturally led to division in the church just as the issue of Christ’s divinity had before Nicaea. So in 381 the emperor Theodosius called the Council of Constantinople. It rejected both of these heresies, and affirmed the full divinity of all three persons of the Trinity as well as the full humanity of Christ. This Council also slightly modified the Nicene Creed to give us the version we still confess today.

Constantinople also marked the final death of Arianism. Though it had been formally rejected at Nicaea, Arianism had not been fully expunged from the church. However, after Constantinople, the church with one voice placed Arians outside the faith – where they remain today (Jehovah’s Witnesses for example).

So to the second question Is Jesus human, Constantinople said “yes.”

Why is this important?

If Christ is not God He cannot save us. If He is not human, he cannot represent us as the Second Adam and be our substitute.

So to sum these two up and help you remember them:

Is Jesus God?

Is Jesus Human?

Emperor

Constantine

Theodosius

Yes

Athanasius

Gregory of Nazianzus

No

Arius

Apollinaris

Council

Nicaea

Constantinople I

Year

325

381

THE (FIRST) COUNCIL OF EPHESUS (431) & THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON (451)

So remember our third question…if Jesus is both divine and human, how are those two elements combined and what language do we use to describe Him?

Like the Nicene Creed, this was hashed out in two successive church councils, one at Ephesus in 431 and one at Chalcedon in 451.

There were two errors with regard to the nature of Christ once his divinity and humanity were assumed:

· Nestorianism

· Eutychianism (or Monophysitism)

Nestorianism is the belief that there were two separate persons in Christ, a human person and a divine person.[vii]

Eytychianism or Monophysitism taught that Christ had one nature only. His humanness and his divinity combined to form a third unique nature. He was not fully God nor fully man but a kind of hybrid.

This was finally resolved at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D. with the “Chalcedonian Definition” which has been the standard, orthodox definition of the biblical teaching on the person of Christ ever since by Catholics, the Orthodox and Protestants:

Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.

It basically says that Christ is fully human and fully divine but that He is one person.

Why is this kind of precision important?

WHEN DID THE CATHOLIC CHURCH BECOME THE CATHOLIC CHURCH?

There are several distinctives separating Roman Catholicism from Reformed Protestantism. Some are major some are minor. Among the major ones and one of THE issues of the Reformation was the source of authority. We’ll talk about this more when we get to the Reformation.

The reformers said ultimate authority on matters of faith and doctrine is sola scriptura, the scriptures alone. The RCC, however, vests that ultimate authority in the church, specifically the pope.

So, I think one of the ways to answer that question is to look at when the Pope became authoritative.

One of the things that increased the Pope’s authority enormously was the barbarian invasions in the western empire, specifically Italy in the fifth century. The barbarians essentially turned civilization upside down in the west and the church under the leadership of the Bishop of Rome became the guardians of what was left of ancient civilization.[viii]They in some ways became the imperial structure of the west after the civil government imperial structure collapsed.

For example, in 452 A.D. Attila the Hun invaded Italy. After sacking the city of Aquileia, the road to Rome was wide open. Nothing stood between the city and the invaders. The bishop of Rome, who we now know as Pope Leo the Great road out to meet Attila and convinced him to turn back. The urban legend, if you will, is that Attila saw not only the Pope but Peter and Paul standing with him and that’s why he turned back.

Obviously this did much for the prestige of both Leo and his office. Leo was convinced that the “rock” upon which Jesus built His church was Peter (Matthew 16:18) and therefore Peter’s successors, bishops at Rome, were the head of the church. So, from the bully pulpit of his increasing civil authority, theological matters were also determined.

So if the turning point is papal authority, the mid-fifth century is a good candidate.

This reached a climax when, on Christmas Day 800 A.D., Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne, King of the Franks (France) as Holy Roman Emperor. The Papacy was now in the king-making business, something they would continue to do for several hundred years.

Interestingly, the final nail in the coffin of the papacy’s political power happened in the same place it began, France. In December 1804 with Pope Pius VII in attendance, Napoleon Bonaparte crowned himself emperor making it clear he did not serve at the pleasure of the papacy.

[i]Defending Constantine, Peter Leithart, p.207 [ii]The Story of Christianity, Justo Gonzalez, p. 122 [iii]The Westminster Dictionary of Theologians, Justo Gonzalez, editor, p. 22 [iv]131 Christians Everyone Should Know by Mark Galli & Ted Olsen, p. 18 [v]The Story of Christianity by Justo Gonzalez, p. 164 [vi]Know the Creeds and Councils, Justin S. Holcomb, p. 74 [vii]Systematic Theology, Wayne Grudem, p. 555 [viii]Gonzalez, p.242