Apostasy, Part 2

Read Part 1 first if you haven’t already. This will make more sense in context.

Note: References to Socrates are not to a Greek Philosopher chronicled by Plaro, but to a 4^th century historian of the same name,

Overview

The early church struggled with self-definition. The apostles were sent out to be witnesses of Christ in all the world. This they and the results were remarkable. Success dates from the great Pentecost experience, after which Peter becomes a stalwart, powerful and mature leader. Yet there was much which needed definition – and there were no printing presses, telephones, powered vehicles, etc, etc. to assist in this process. So leadership meetings were difficult and relatively rare and communication was by personal visits, messengers or letters. Much of the New Testament is comprised of some of these letters. Keep in mind that these written letters were “occasional” in nature – that is, written as a thing in itself in response to a need, situation or problem. This is in contrast to some like, say, the Federalist Papers which were written as a body of work, building one upon another or in response to other letters on the same topic, a succession of letters made into one whole. Also, Paul’s preference was to visit with “his” congregations personally, second choice was to send a messenger or emissary, and writing a letter was the third option in order of preference. From this we might infer that if there was something really important for him to address, he might well have done so in person, thus depriving us (and potentially the rest of Christendom of his time) a written record of whatever was going on. [Note also the titillating fact that a version of the Book of Acts has been identified which is about 20% longer than our current book.]

Moral of the story thus far: To our best knowledge there was never a handbook written outlining the doctrines and practices of the church. But if there was such a thing, we certainly don’t have it. And we won’t even slow down to comment on the argument that we don’t need anything more than the Bible, that it is fully adequate. Manifestly untrue. Were it fully adequate, why are there so many creeds, edicts, papal bulls . . . . most using non-scriptural terms to define the faith? Whoops, I wasn’t going to go there,

The histories of the churches demonstrate growing, real differences. What constitutes scripture? [Have you seen a Catholic Bible?] The first known list of scriptural books which make up our New Testament dates from the early 4^th century. Many volumes did not make the cut to get into the official scriptures, although individual churches or movements used them.

I think you get the drift.

Anyway, enter Constantine. It is not our purpose to spend much time on him. But he was Emperor, which counts for a whole lot, and he converted to Christianity. He became unhappy with the wrangling and the “wrestling” in the church over doctrine and decided to do something about it. He called for a world-wide council and told them, essentially, that their behavior unacceptable and that he wanted the squabbling stopped and that no one got to go home until they had solved the doctrinal questions which beset the church.

Some Pre-Nicean Background

With the loss of the apostles and their authority, the church was really a set of congregations. They struggled within themselves and between each other. They were obviously well disposed to each other and did things like share the apostolic letters and post-apostolic letters they had through the expensive and time consuming and problematic process of hand copying. Within the void of leadership we see the emergence of the ‘Church Fathers’ – a group of educated leaders who essentially filled the leadership void because they could write and had scholarly credentials. Many of their writings exist and give us great insight into what was happening, especially in the 3^rd and 4^th centuries of the church.

The training of the day was Greek Philosophy, rhetoric and dialectic. Rhetoric being the art of philosophical debate or argumentation and dialectic being a popular and powerful example of how the rhetoricians argued. In fact, many of these folks traveled around as itinerant teachers or performers, earning a living through their knowledge and rhetoric.

Into this context we have an event which the historian Socrates credits as being impetus for
Constantine to call the Council of Nicea. He describes it this way:

One day [the Bishop of Alexandria] in a meeting of his presbyters and the rest of the clergy under him theologized in a rather showy way on the subject of the Holy Trinity; philosophizing to the effect that that in a triad is really a monad. Arias, one of the presbyters under his authority and not unskilled in dialectic give and take, took the extreme opposite position, just to show how much smarter he was, and replied bitingly to the things the Bishop had said. . . . By constructing his (Arias) syllogisms by this novel reasoning, he attracted everybody’s attention – and with a small spark lit a might blaze.

Here we see the problems with philosophy, i.e., man’s wisdom. The Bishop was being showy, using non-scriptural terms like triad and monad, and Arias taking on the challenge just to outshine the Bishop. They were not motivated to discover the truth and they started a controversy which engulfed the whole church. Constantine said this disunity was improper and led the children of God astray. Thus he called the Council of Nicea to settle the controversy once and for all.

Socrates gives us this view of some pre-council activities:

Meanwhile, not long before the general assembly was to take place, certain dialecticians were addressing the multitude and showing off in controversy. Great crowds being attracted by the pleasure of hearing them, one of the confessors, a layman with a clear head, stood up and rebuked the dialecticians and said to them that Christ and the Apostles did not give to us the dialectical art nor empty tricks, but straightforward knowledge preserved by faith and good works. When he said this, all those present were flabbergasted, and then agreed. And the dialecticians, hearing straight talk, became a good deal more sober and contained. Thus was abated the uproar which dialectic had stirred up.

Well, there were apparently some clear headed people around. Unfortunately they were not among those who were about to make the creeds.

Here is another interesting vignette. It involves Justin and someone identified only as an old man or aged Christian. Justin was a pagan and a philosopher who converted to Christianity and became one of the more influential early writers and teachers in the church. This dialogue goes a long way to illustrate the problem faced in the early church.

In a public forum Justin explains that the main business of philosophy is the search for God. To this the old man questions:

OM: What do philosophers say God is?

Justin: That which always has the same relationships to things, is always the same in and of itself and is the cause of all other things. That is God.

OM: How can such a being be known? If someone told you that there was an animal in Ludia shaped like no other animal on earth with such and such properties . . . and you haven’t seen it, you would at least need to talk to someone who had seen it. [Justin agrees.] Then how can philosophers think correctly about God or say anything true about him since they don’t have any actual knowledge about him, having at no time either seen or heard,

Justin: But my dear old man, God is not to be seen with the eyes as other living things are, but only to be grasped with the mind, as Plato says, and I believe him! According to Plato, God is seen with the mind’s eye; He being the cause of all perceptible things but himself; having no color, no shape, no dimension – none of such qualities as may be seen by the eye, but yet is that which exists beyond all existence; unutterable, indiscernible, yet alone beautiful and good, coming as a direct intuition to properly disposed spirits because of their kinship and their desire to see Him.

Compare this with Matthew 16:16-17; John 17:3.

So the Council was held. Out of came a creed which was more philosophical than scriptural. It passed on a close vote. At the end of the Council, Constantine address the group, restated that the squabbling was to stop and declared the new creed binding on all of Christendom. After all, he says, “it is incomprehensible.”

Hillary, a participant and Christian writer of the time, had this to say:

"We avoid believing that of Christ which He told us to believe, so that we might establish a treacherous unity in the false name of peace, and we rebel with new definitions of God against what we falsely call innovations, and in the name of the Scriptures we deceitfully cite things that are not in the Scriptures: changeful, prodigal, impious, changing established things, abolishing accepted doctrine, presuming irreligious things."

As on observer noted, “Either the Christians became philosophers, or the ancient philosophers were somehow Christians all along.”

Eusubius, a major Christian historian, went to great pains to hail this Council as a wonderful thing and that his employer, Constantine, had done a great thing to bring this to a wonderful conclusion. He defends the use of non-scriptural terms and reassures us that this wall just fine. After all, the council had worked hard and all was arrived at not without careful examination and according to opinions presented and agreed upon in carefully worded “logismoi”.

Logismoi? Yes, an interesting choice of wording because Paul uses this very word when he says revealed knowledge invalidates and confounds all “logismoi: -- that is all calculations of men.

This is in contrast to how the church, led by a prophet, resolves disputes. Let’s go back to one of the disputed ideas in the early church which we considered at the beginning – the problem of circumcision. The church leaders met together and counseled and prayed. Then Peter announced the decision that was given him of the spirit. Acts 15:12 says “Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.”

Conclusion

A brief one, as we are out of time. But the reformation comes along, primarily to correct abusive practices in the church. Luther had 95 theses which he thought needed to be addressed, for example. He had no intention of starting his own church, but he wanted to resolve differences. Gradually, very gradually, religious toleration increased. This paved the way for a new nation to be founded specifically as a place where the gospel could be restored and the long famine of hearing the word of the Lord could be over. (Amos 8:11-12) But it was a near thing. Bringing forth of the gospel “Cost the best blood of the 19^th century” (D&C 135) and the persecutions are not over yet – not by a long way.

But if the Latter-day Saints have been spared this groping in the philosophical half-light, searching for the ideation called God, it is because we have been lead by living prophets and apostles. It is worth remembering that Paul warned Timothy that the church would harbor those who were “ever learning, but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.”

A final note on faith and works – “If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth will set you free. . . . If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.” (John 8:31-32, 36)