Constantine The Great And His Theory Of The Trinity

[Snow]

In another thread we are discussing the role of Constantine the Great at the Council of Nicaea. Constantine called, organized, convened and presided at the Council and participated in the discussions. I find this to be disconcerting given that, despite his claims of conversion, Constantine was not a Catholic and was in fact a brutal and horrific, killer (of enemies, political rivals, close personal friends and family members), before and after the Council.

Modern scholarship is replete with references to, and descriptions of. the presiding role of Constantine at the Council of Nicaea which I list later (below). Ultimately, all later works draw on earlier works. Here is a list of the early or more primary sources that I personally checked:

Eusebius, Vita Constantini, Book III, ch. 6-13

Socrates, Historia Ecclesia, Book I ch.8

Theoderet, Historia Ecclesia, Book I, ch.6-13

Sozomen, Historia Ecclesia, Book 1, ch.21

Athanasius, De decretis synodis

Athanasius, Ep. ad episcopos Africae, 5.ff

In reading the early sources and modern scholarly works, the following picture of Constantine and the Council of Nicaea clearly emerges:

1. Religious controversy was swirling, threatening the civil peace. Contrary to what some critics claim, Constantine probably did really believe in Christianity, however, he was also motivated by the potential he saw in Christianity to eventually bring some peace or unity to the empire.

2. Constantine probably did not grasp the significance of the Arian controversy but understood what the dissension meant to civil rule.*

3. Constantine decided that a council was needed. Although it is not known, it is surmised by some the emperor was advised on the matter by Hosius of Cordova.**

4. Constantine summoned bishops from every country to attend the Council, and he paid for their travel and financial support to, during, and from the Council.

5. Prominent members of the council included Eusebius of Caesara, St. Alexander, Eustathius, Eusebius of of Nicomedia, two papal legates, and a young Athanasius. Reports of the number of bishops in attendance range from 200 to 318 (by Athanasius) though the latter number is no longer generally accepted as correct and was possibly promoted originally because it related to the number of Abraham’s servants when he rescued Lot. The vast majority of the bishops were from the East with sparse representation from the West. In addition, many others, including the bishops’ support staff, (presbyters and deacons) came to the Council. 1500 is a reasonable estimate.

6. Constantine presided at the council. After the assembly had been seated, Constantine’s firsts and seconds entered in succession and then the emperor made a grand, ostentatious entrance, made a show of humility, waiting for the bishops to beckon him before sitting.

7. Constantine gave an opening speech and then the deliberations began in earnest, breaking down into acrimony and accusations. Constantine himself participated in the discussions, knowing that his theological opinion would be respectfully received. Constantine was not a theologian nor a baptized Christian yet he didn’t hesitate to participate in, influence and steer discussions - the bishops even took their cues from the emperor. As Eusebius puts it: “Notwithstanding this, the emperor gave patient audience to all alike, and received every proposition with steadfast attention, and by occasionally assisting the argument of each party in turn, he gradually disposed even the most vehement disputants to a reconciliation. At the same time, by the affability of his address to all, and his use of the Greek language, with which he was not altogether unacquainted, he appeared in a truly attractive and amiable light, persuading some, convincing others by his reasonings, praising those who spoke well, and urging all to unity of sentiment, until at last he succeeded in bringing them to one mind and judgment respecting every disputed question.”***

8. During the deliberations, Constantine himself introduced/recommended the use of the term “homoousios” (of the same substance) to explain the relationship of the Son to the Father, even though the term had a dubious past, it’s use by the Sabellian bishops of Libya having been condemned in about 260AD as was it’s somewhat different use condemned by the Council of Antioch in 268 AD.

9. It is possible that Constantine did not participate in all sessions or discussions of the Council, for example, the Meletian schism issue.

10. Constantine resorted to threats of punishment to those that would not agree at the Council and followed through on the punishment by exiling Arius and two bishops. Some accounts differ on the number that were punished. For example, Rufinus (Historia Ecclesiastica 10.5) says: “Six only there were who suffered themselves to be expelled with Arius, while the other eleven, after taking counsel together, agreed to subscribe with hand only, not heart.” Constantine later ordered the destruction of all books written by Arius and death by burning to whoever possessed them. No records exist about who or how many might have been so killed.

11. The Council lasted a couple months. After the Council, Constantine put on a lavish celebration and then gave permission for the bishops to leave.

Notes:

*That Constantine did not understand the significance of the Arian controversy is suggested by his characterization of it as a “trifling” issue. In a letter Constantine repeatedly criticized Arius and Bishop Alexander for disputing about matters of no real significance. There are many references to this; for example: John Holland Smith, Constantine the Great, p 191.

** Though there is no evidence of it, some believe that Constantine conferred with Pope Silvester on convening the Council.

***Who presided is an important issue. Most scholarly accounts (typically citing the ancient accounts) says that Constantine presided or that Constantine was the president of the Council. Some authors say that he presided at the opening session. The fact that Constantine presided at Nicaea is problematic for the Church because it implies that Rome had supreme authority over the Church and it’s doctrinal positions. At the very least the notion of supreme papal authority is undermined by the authority exercised at Nicaea by Constantine. If you read Catholic authors, you will see an attempt to portray someone other than Constantine with supreme authority - someone to whom can be attached papal authority by representation. I think that is an historically unsupported contention and is done for theological reasons. There is at least one modern, serious historian who does make a tentative case papal jurisdiction at the Council. Warren Carroll, a PHd educated at Columbia, and a Catholic has written a serious and well-received work Building of Christendom: History of Christendom Vol. 2 His is, however, a minority opinion. Other authors have suggested that Eustathius of Antioch or Alexander of Alexandria may possibly have presided. (see Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, ed. Norman P. Tanner S.J.) Ultimately it comes down, not to just a word - “presided” - but to a question of who was the real power and authority behind the council. the scholarly sources I list below use ancient sources and choose the word “preside” to describe what is known of Constantine’s role. Says Michael Grant: “ It is not certain who was selected as chairman of the Council - probably several persons in turn, including Ossius (Hosius), were appointed to preside over its meetings. Yet it was to Constantine who held such strong views about the subordination of the church to the state that everyone looked.” Michael Grant, Constantine the Great: The Man and His Times, p. 173 (Fellow of Trinity College, Professor of Humanity at Edinburgh University).

That Constantine presides at Nicaea is entirely consistent with how the emperor had been operating. When the Donatist controversy had broken out over a decade earlier, it was to Constantine, not the Church proper that the Donatists made their appeal. Constantine reponded by appointing 5 judges - then with the pope appointing 14 Italian bishops, it was transformed into a Council of Synod. The die was being caste. “True, the emperor completely controlled the bishops himself. His dominance over them, embodied in the statement ‘my will must be considered binding’ (H.M. Jones, Constantine and the Conversion of Europe pp 142f; another version is in J. Holland Smith, Constantine the Great pp. 191f)) which some earlier Christians would never have accepted - was a prime example of that monarchical control of church described as Caesaropapism. Athanasius declared that the Fathers never sought imperial sanction (R. MacMullen, Constantine, p. 237 ), but in Constantine’s time they had to and they did. And it was he himself who chose every bishop when a vacancy arose.” Michael Grant, Constantine the Great: The Man and His Times, p. 159 Though there is no evidence of it, some believe that Constantine conferred with Pope Silvester on convening the Council.

Additional References which I have personally checked:

Constantine Presides

Kenneth Scott Latourette ((Sterling Professor of Missions and Oriental History and Fellow of Berkeley College in Yale University) A History of Christianity pp 153-4

Judith Herrin, The Formation of Christendom, pp. 99-100 (Herrin is a member if editorial board of Past and Present, and a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London, graduated in history at Cambridge, PhD at Birmingham University and studied in Paris, Munich, Istanbul and most recently a Fellow at the Shelby Cullom Davis Center for Historical Studies, Princeton University.)

Richard Kieckhefer (1989) “Papacy” Dictionary of the Middle Ages

Brian Moynahan, The Faith - A History of Christianity, p.121

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9055691]Encyclopedia Britannica

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761560..._the_Great.html] MS Encarta

Encyclopedia of Roman Emperors

Constantine I, Roman Emperor - The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition 2001

Constantine was the President of the Council of Nicaea

David Edwards, (Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford, Dean of Kings College, Cambridge, Sub-Dean of Westminster and Dean of Norwich) Christianity, The First 2000 Years p. 96

Hefele, Historire des Conciles... Vol 1, Part 1, pp 425, 426, 427

[BenRaines]

Snow I really enjoyed your post. While I love reading the bible and do the best I can to live by the teachings found in it I often have a hard time with the way it was compiled and that it was not even by vote of common consent or super majority that lead to the bible but most likely it was done how Constantine wanted it and nothing more.

As your post indicates it was a kind funded gathering. A commission from the kind.

I am not so concerned with what is found in the bible but what is missing that would be for our good.

Ben Raines

[Snow]

Snow I really enjoyed your post. While I love reading the bible and do the best I can to live by the teachings found in it I often have a hard time with the way it was compiled and that it was not even by vote of common consent or super majority that lead to the bible but most likely it was done how Constantine wanted it and nothing more.

As your post indicates it was a kind funded gathering. A commission from the kind.

I am not so concerned with what is found in the bible but what is missing that would be for our good.

Ben Raines

Prison Chaplin has a honest position... that God's will was done even though it was done by the instigation and guidance of a brutal murder. I just don't buy that position. True, God works through the flawed and the weak (Joseph Smith) but Constantine is beyond the pale. If God wanted his nature known, I think it is completely unreasonable that he would go about it in the way that Nicaea unfolder.

It is difficult to give a modern analogy because there are few first world leaders as evil as Constantine but for the sake of argument it would be like Vladamir Putin (if he was a cold-blooded killer of political opponents, friends and family) who called together all the key Church leaders in his world, many of whom he himself appointed, presided at the meeting, participated in the discussions, proposed the key decision, and threatened those who disagreed with death and exile.... No way would we accept any rulings that came out of such a setting.

As to Constantine and the Bible... I think you are likely mistaken. Nicaea did not play a role in the Bible canonization. Of the 20 or so rulings out of Nicaea, none were abouit the Bible. The Bible had been in informal formation for years before, completely seperate from Constantine and was formalized after Constantine's death in the Synod of Hippo just before the turn into the 5th century AD.

You say you aren't concerned about the things that are in the bible but interestingly, it is pretty well understood that the Bible contains a fair amount of later additions:

-The story of the woman taken in adulter.

-The long ending of Mark.

-The Johannine or Johanneum Comma -which speakes to the Trinity.

... all not part of the originals.

[sixpacktr]

You say you aren't concerned about the things that are in the bible but interestingly, it is pretty well understood that the Bible contains a fair amount of later additions:

-The story of the woman taken in adulter.

-The long ending of Mark.

-The Johannine or Johanneum Comma -which speakes to the Trinity.

... all not part of the originals.

Snow,

I'm interested in this last bit of your post. Where did these things come from, if they weren't part of the original manuscripts (I admit, I have absolutely no idea what the Johannine comma is...)? Especially the story of the woman taken in adultery: we talk of that a lot in church as an example of not judging others...

[Snow]

<div class='quotemain'>

You say you aren't concerned about the things that are in the bible but interestingly, it is pretty well understood that the Bible contains a fair amount of later additions:

-The story of the woman taken in adulter.

-The long ending of Mark.

-The Johannine or Johanneum Comma -which speakes to the Trinity.

... all not part of the originals.

Snow,

I'm interested in this last bit of your post. Where did these things come from, if they weren't part of the original manuscripts (I admit, I have absolutely no idea what the Johannine comma is...)? Especially the story of the woman taken in adultery: we talk of that a lot in church as an example of not judging others...

They are called "interpolations" which are later insertion of material into an original text. They are forgeries - frauds, additions made later. Scholars know about them from a variety of ways, not the least of which is comparing the oldest known and best manuscripts and manuscript familes against later manuscripts. The three examples I listed are among the best know fraudulent interpolations to the bible.

Note that being an interpolation doesn't necessarily mean that the point is false, just that the original text had been fraudulently added to.

Here's some pretty fair treatments of the above:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the...ken_in_adultery

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark#Ending

I should qualify my remarks that the majority scholarly opinion is that those of interpolations. Some people, especially Evangelicals disagree. What is undeniable is that all three things are in some bibles and bible manuscripts while not in others.

[prisonchaplain]

Prison Chaplin has a honest position... that God's will was done even though it was done by the instigation and guidance of a brutal murder.

As the OP indicated, Constantine was neither the author, nor the primary theologian behind what became the Nicene Creed. The Trinity was written of formally, going back to the 2nd century. Instead, the Emporer sided with the strongest position--the position that I argue is true. When bad people support good policy or teaching, such does not make the positions suddenly bad.

I just don't buy that position. True, God works through the flawed and the weak (Joseph Smith) but Constantine is beyond the pale.

God can use feebleness, but not secular power?

If God wanted his nature known, I think it is completely unreasonable that he would go about it in the way that Nicaea unfolder.

God's nature was known. Nicea drew a line in the sand between orthodoxy and heresy. Such councils are always difficult. The losers get branded heretics, and the winners sometimes used more than the humble leading of the Spirit to garner their victory.

My movement went through a similar controversy around 1917. The "New Issue" (Oneness Pentecostalism) ended up with the General Council adopting a Statement of Faith with clear trinitarian doctrine. The result was that one-third of the ministers and 25% of the the people left.

Lines in the sand are never pretty. However, sometimes they have to be drawn. When your church adopted the anti-polygamy doctrine, some people left as well. They too my decry the methods of men and of politics to force an unscriptural doctrine upon the people.

[Snow]

As the OP indicated, Constantine was neither the author, nor the primary theologian behind what became the Nicene Creed. The Trinity was written of formally, going back to the 2nd century. Instead, the Emporer sided with the strongest position--the position that I argue is true. When bad people support good policy or teaching, such does not make the positions suddenly bad.

That's not exactly accurate. Constantine himself proposed and argued for a key part of the ruling - homoousious, which at the time had a tainted reputation because of a previous controversy. Since he made it abundantly clear that his will must prevail, who would argue with him, since those who did oppose him kept turning up dead, family, friend, or foe.

The idea of the Trinity, especially as it came out of Nicaea, was only one of the many competing theories of early history. It may have been, in one form or another, the most popular but popularity hardly means true.

Christ never said it was true. The apostles and authors of the NT never said it was true.

God can use feebleness, but not secular power?

Theoretically, sure. Are you aware of any examples of God revealing his will through the auspices of evil despots instead of through his servants, the prophets?

God's nature was known. Nicea drew a line in the sand between orthodoxy and heresy. Such councils are always difficult. The losers get branded heretics, and the winners sometimes used more than the humble leading of the Spirit to garner their victory.

Not known - surmized. The nature as voted upon at the Council was but one view.

My movement went through a similar controversy around 1917. The "New Issue" (Oneness Pentecostalism) ended up with the General Council adopting a Statement of Faith with clear trinitarian doctrine. The result was that one-third of the ministers and 25% of the the people left.

Lines in the sand are never pretty. However, sometimes they have to be drawn. When your church adopted the anti-polygamy doctrine, some people left as well. They too my decry the methods of men and of politics to force an unscriptural doctrine upon the people.

Well said.

[Jason]

I think the thread title is off, as it was not "constantine's" theory. He did support the theory, but only because it was in the majority at the time.

You should add Rubenstein's "When Jesus Became God" to your list of must reads.

[Snow]

I think the thread title is off, as it was not "constantine's" theory. He did support the theory, but only because it was in the majority at the time.

You're correct. So noted.

You should add Rubenstein's "When Jesus Became God" to your list of must reads.

Uggg. Another book to my list?

I am packing up the house to move in 3 weeks. I am boxing up my library into those boxes of letter size copier paper. So far I am up to 77 boxes.

I'll look for it at Barnes and Noble.

[Jason]

You're correct. So noted.

I'm putting that into my sig line. :)

Uggg. Another book to my list?

I am packing up the house to move in 3 weeks. I am boxing up my library into those boxes of letter size copier paper. So far I am up to 77 boxes.

I'll look for it at Barnes and Noble.

Oh, but this one is a fun read, giving some good info on the Arian controversy.

Good luck with the move. Was it Colorado City or Hildale you were moving into? B)