God and The Universe

The more I've thought about the issues I first discussed in Semi-Arianism and the Second Ecumenical Council the more I've come to think that the Homoousion controversy became a distraction from the actual point of the Arian Heresy.  But that's not me saying Homoousionism is wrong, per se.

So first we need to ask the question of why even did the full Arians (and even many Semi-Arians) object to the Homoousion formula so strongly?  It was not relevant to Arius's original explanation of his Theology at all.  And Arians did believe Jesus was the Son of God.  Aren't most children made from the Substance of their parents?

It's because of how by this time the Pythagorean and Platonic understanding of The Divine had influenced all schools of thought in the Greco-Roman world.  To them no Created Being could be described as being of the same Substance as the True Original God.  The Demiurge of Timaeus could be considered in some sense Homousian with the matter it was merely rearranging, but even the Demiurge was not Homousian with the True God (at least during this later post Numenius of Apamea period of Platonism and Pythagoreanism).  And the Arians were essentially Platonists who identified The Logos/Jesus with the Demiurge not the ultimate Supreme Being.  However what the Arians and Athanasians and Trinitarians who were iffy on Homoousianism like Eusebius of Caesarea all agreed on was that Creation itself is not Homousian with The Father.

I am making this post to suggest that this assumption everyone at Nicaea agreed on is actually something that The Bible maybe doesn't agree with.

I know that many Christians are used to thinking God must be completely outside The Universe in order to be it's Creator.  But if you know what you're doing, you can construct a circular wall in such a way that you are within it when you are done making it.  And maybe the Substance of God is Infinite enough that He could create the Universe from His own Substance without lessening Himself at all?

When The Bible says that The Heavens are His Throne and The Earth His Footstool, that imagery tells me He's within The Universe not outside of it.  Remember both the Ancient Hebrew and Greek words for "Heaven" at their core just meant The Sky and what we would call Outer Space.  I already made a post arguing that the Light that lightened the Universe before the Sun, Moon and Stars were created was the same Light that Jesus is identified with.  And then there is the fact that Adam became a Living Soul when God Breathed Life into him.  Breath in that verse is also a word for Spirit.  To me that is pretty strong support for at least our Spirits and/or Souls being homousian with The Holy Spirit.

InspiringPhilosophy in his video on Panentheism said there is supposed to be a strong distinction between Creator and Creation, but the only verse he cited was what Paul said in Romans 1.  First of all that verse was only about what we're supposed to Worship and nothing else.  And also Romans 1:18-32 is Paul quoting the beliefs of the Platonic Hellenized Jews of Rome he spent the rest of the Epistle refuting.  In Romans 11 Paul tells us what God is doing in grafting Gentiles into Israel is "Para phusis" thus utterly destroying the world view of Romans 1 where being "Para Phusis" is presented as inherently evil.

Materialism is often assumed to be inherently Atheistic.  However the Theology of the Ancient Stoics was a Materialist Monotheism.  (IP for some reason defined Soticism completely wrong in the Panentheism video), and so was the Theology of Dutch Jewish Philosopher Spinoza.

God being in The Universe doesn't mean He would be in it in a way that our currently limited ablity to perceive it could detect.  We now know there are at least 10 dimensions but we live in or perceive only 4 of them, the 3 spatial dimensions and time.  "Dark matter" is just a term for matter scientists are pretty sure exists but we are not currently capable of detecting with any of our 5 senses, and it's estimated to make up 85% of all matter.  The 6 colors our eyes can see are only a small piece of the Electromagnetic Spectrum, and it's the same with the other senses.

In other words No I'm not arguing that God and His Angels simply live on a Planet orbiting Polaris that we could fly a space ship to.

[Update November: See this post which is kind of a follow up.]

[The below digression into Stoicism I am more iffy on now, I don't want to erase it, it should have maybe always been a separate post.]

I'm neither Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox.

In spite of the things that are Protestant like about me, I have come to reject the Protestant understanding of "Justified by Faith not works".  Which is the one thing all branches of Protestantism have in common, Lutheran, Calvanist, Arminian, Wesleyan, and the Free Grace Eternal Security that was my original Soteriology when I started this blog.

Justification in Romans is NOT the same thing as Salvation, the true Soteriology of Paulian Theology is laid out in Romans 5 and 11 where Justification is no longer the focus at all.  And when Paul speaks of us being Saved By Grace through Faith in other Epistles, the Faith in question is of Jesus not us.

So does that make my view of Justification the same as the Catholic and Orthodox view?  Maybe, but must still be understood in the context of my firm belief in Universal Salvation.  

However what prevents me from simply going back and rejoining any Ancient Church is that I firmly reject Episcopal Polity and the Authority of all Church Councils besides the one attended by the Apostles themselves in Acts 15.  My position on Church Polity is Congregational first and foremost but with elements of Presbyterianism.

So many Catholic and Orthodox clerical arguments against Protestantism are founded on a belief there needs to be some tangible continuity between a valid modern Church and the Churches of antiquity  And I can't help but be reminded of the things Jesus said specifically to rebuke that way of thinking.

"From whom did John get his Authority to Baptize?"-Matthew 21:23-27

"Who isn't agaisnt us is with us"-Mark 9:40

The Church was never meant to be an Organized Religion but a decentralized association.

I reject calling Mary Theotokos because it's UnBiblical

To me that's what should matter to Sola Scriptura Christians. It's technical accuracy or one's opinion on other issues related to the Nestorian Schism should be irrelevant.  If you want to call Mary a title it should be something Scripture directly says of her.

This issue is not my only area of affinity or at least sympathy with Theodore of Mopsuesta, Nestorius and the Ancient Church of The East.  The main thing that makes me hesitant to simply identify as a Nestorian is that they like Cyril and Augustine strongly stress the Platonic doctrine of Divine Impassibility and are thus hostile to the Theopaschite Formula.  To me that it was the "Fullness of the Godhead" and not merely a Man suffering on The Cross is what makes the Atonement truly work, regardless of what theory of Atonement you take.  But I'm not prepared to make a full post on that topic yet.

I've seen people use Luke 1:43 as Biblical support for Theotokos as a title for Mary, where Elizabeth says.

"And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?"

Problem is if you want to use this verse as your defense of a Greek title for Mary it should be the Greek words used in this verse.  Which are Meter and Kuriou not Theos or Tokos.  

So yes I'm kind of rejecting even the Tokos part as well.  We tend to translate this phrase as "Mother of God" (and Nestorius's alternative Christtokos as "Mother of Christ") but that's not truly accurate.  Tokos is a very technical term for the act of carrying a baby, you could equally apply it to a incubator.  Meter is the familial title of Mother which I think is far more fitting to describe Mary's relationship to Jesus.

But back to what people are usually disputing.  Using this verse to defend Theotokos is based on assuming every use of a form of Kurios in the New Testament must be merely the Jewish custom of using it to stand in for the Tetragramaton, the Holy Name of God, Yot-Heh-Vav-Heh which I prefer to pronounce Yahuah.  However I believe that assumption is never correct of any occurrence of "my Lord", I believe "my Lord" is always a translation of the Hebrew Adoni which in pre-masoretic texts is sometimes difficult to distinguish from Adonai.

Psalm 110 in the KJV begins with "The LORD said unto my Lord" which in the Hebrew is "YHWH said unto Adoni".  All three Synoptic Gospels quote this with the "my Lord" being in reference to Melchizedek as a type of Christ.

I want to mention the Peshita briefly.  Luke's Gospel is one of the many NT books where I consider there to be no basis for Peshita primacy, the book was definitely originally in Greek.  But looking at it as a witness to how Early Semitic Speaking Christians translated it can still be useful.  For Kurios verses the Peshita uses Mar-Yah whenever it's a stand in for YHWH but simply a form of Mar when it's merely a form of Adon.  This verse in the Peshita uses Mari (my Lord) not Mar-Yah (but the Peshita does use Mar-Yah in reference to Jesus elsewhere).

So the Greek title for Mary I would construct from this verse is one using a form of Kurious and a form of Meter.  But as a Weeb I think I'll go with AkaaSan-no-Sama, or I could use Mikoto instead of Sama but that is a bit more obscure a reference for westerners.

I agree with the Theology and Christology of the original Nicene Creed including Homousian.  However while The Bible supports Jesus being God in a Trinitarian sense, The New Testament is far more interested in stressing Him as Christ, The Lord and most importantly the Son of God.  That's Peter's essential dramatic Confession, and Martha's in John 11 and what the first verse of Mark says, and what 1 John 4:15 says anyone who confesses that God Dwells in them.  

So I do think it's bothersome how often modern Western Christianity obsesses over Jesus as God and forgets to stress that The Trinity is a Family that we are being Adopted into.  The relationship between God and Jesus is that of a Father and Son.  

And as a Weeb I like to refer to The Holy Spirit as Onee-Sama.  Proverbs 7:4 is the basis for calling Wisdom(Sophia) a word for Sister and I've argued elsewhere for her being The Holy Spirit.

The Last Ecumenical Council

The Anglican Church is the only major Protestant Church that upholds all Seven Ecumenical Councils.  Coincidentally this isn't the only quality they have in common with the Eastern Orthodox, the way their founded on the King being the head of the Church fits the Emperor's role in Byzantine Christianity.

For most Protestants this is the only Ecumenical Council they really go out of their way to criticize. Calvin expressed general agreement with the first 4, ignored the next 2 and then went hard on the 7th.  Martin Luther himself didn't approve of iconoclastic tendencies, but still never specifically addressed any Ecumenical Councils after Chalcedon.

I perhaps have more sympathy for this council then most American Evangelicals and Protestants.  Literal Idolatry is not as pressing a concern under the New Testament era, civil leaders are no longer judged chiefly on how zealous they are about shutting down Polytheistic worship.  So I'm not an Iconoclast since I don't even believe in going out of our way to destroy actual Pagan Idols, like Roger Williams I feel NT Christians should follow the example the Religious Tolerance of Cyrus and Artaxerxes.

Still, Old Testament applications of the Second Commandment definitely include Images that were supposedly of YHWH, the worship of the Golden Calf was called a Feast to YHWH in Exodus 32:5 and Jeroboam's Idols were identified with YHWH, Jehu is depicted as a devout YHWH onlyist and yet he too was guilty of the Sins of Jeroboam.

I do believe certain things changed at The Cross, so the implications of the Incarnation on this issue should be considered.  NT passages that present Idolatry as still a concern are in the context of what Paul taught the Corinthians, it's about belief more so then actions.  This issue remains ambiguous because nothing in the New Testament either specifically condones Images of Jesus or prohibits them.  There is New Testament support for using symbols instead, like how Paul verbally uses The Cross as a symbol.

Ryan Reeves and others have pointed out how the Early Church used Art but didn't artistically depict Jesus even for awhile after Nicaea, Images of Jesus don't start to show up till the late 5th Century and increased in popularity during the reign of Justinian and again in the 7th century.  The Synod of Elvira was a Pre-Nicaea council that expressed a harsh view of using images.

The first "Iconclast" Emperor Leo III did not actually engage in any active persecution of those who insisted on keeping their Icons, it was his successors who started going that far.  Wikipedia says that poorer regions of the Empire generally supported Iconoclasm more then the wealthier regions.

The overturned pro-iconoclasm council was the ONLY early Church council to epxliclty affirm endless torment in hell and anathematize any who reject that doctrine.  That doesn't seem directly relevant to the issue at hand, unless the Iconophiles typically believed in Universal Salvation, like Gregory of Nyssa who the seventh council proclaimed a father of the fathers.  That would be a reason for me to feel inclined towards the Iconophiles, but I won't let that shape how I critique everything else.

Saying the Iconoclasts are wrong is one thing, but outright Anathamatizing the act was based on saying it is sinful agaisnt God to destroy an Image of God.  And that is the start of what makes this council Idolatrous.

But they went beyond just condemning the destruction of Icons.  One of the Anathamas reads "Anathema to those who do not salute the holy and venerable images", I don't care how you distinguish "salute" from "worship", telling me I'm accursed for not respecting your images makes you just as much of a judgmental zealot as the ones breaking them.  I for the record consider even Saluting the American Flag to be idolatry.

This council also affirmed the Veneration of Mary and the Saints and Images of them, not just of Jesus, and refers to praying to Mary.  This distinction Catholics insist on making between Veneration and Worship is amusing to me.  If you went back in time to before Christianity even existed and tried to explain to someone how your praying to a famous person who died before you were born isn't worshiping them, they would laugh at you.  It is solely Christians trying to justify un-Biblical behavior that has created this distinction.

The Council even affirms sacred relics in Canon 7 even saying you can't have Churches without them (The New Testament teaches that a church is any place where two or more believers gather together.).  The Brazen Serpent is a symbol of Jesus in the NT yet it had to be destroyed when The Israelites started "venerating" it.  And no I don't think The Ark's role in the Temple is a comparable kind of Veneration, because it was there to be the thing a proper cult Idol would be standing or sitting on top of in a normal Temple. 

This is as good a time as any to state that I disapprove of calling Mary "Theotokos", the technical accuracy of the term isn't the point, the title isn't Biblical, calling her The Virgin Mary is enough.  I agree with 100% of the gist of the Chalcedonian definition, and have no objection to 90% of the details, only this word, "before all ages" and I would say "Scriptures" in-place of "Fathers" at the beginning and end.

I've tried not to take the anti Theotokos position since I respect a lot of Greek Orthodox believers.  But there is no getting around it anymore.

Why I say Universal Salvation NOT Apocatastasis

The problem with the term Apocatastasis is that as it was used during Church controversies of the era of the Ecumenical Councils it became as strongly tied to (in my opinion wrong) ideas of what Salvation even is as it was to being about who gets Saved.

Especially when tied to Origen it is about a Platonic Notion of the Pre-Existence of Souls, and that our "Salvation" is that we eventually become one with God losing our individuality, like the After Life presented in Star Wars, becoming one with the living Force.  It was this heresy condemned by the 543 Synod of Constantinople and addressed by the 15 Anathemas often linked to Constantinople II in 553.

My position on the creation of Souls is currently Traducianism, which is a rare example of me agreeing with Augustine of Hippo, but before Augustine it was Tertulian's view but I don't always agree with him either.

Now I don't disagree with Origen because Councils condemned him, I don't care what they do.  I firmly disagree with Constantinople II's condemnation of The Three Chapters and Ephesus's condemnation of Nestorius.  I do agree with the Chalecondian Definition on how the Divine and Human natures of Christ relate, but what those men taught is not sufficiently different enough to be heretical, same with the Miaphysites who disagreed in the opposite direction, only Eutyches was guilty of Monopysitism.

I've read all 15 Anathemas and nothing comes close to being like what I believe.  Anathema 14 is primarily addressing this wrong idea of what Salvation is, not who gets Saved.

I don't know how many Councils can be said to have addressed "Apocatastasis" in some fashion, but the only one to explicitly affirm Endless Torment and Anthamatize any who disagree with Endless Torment is the 754 Iconoclast council that was later overturned and repudiated by Nicaea II the Seventh and final Ecumenical Council, the same council that made a point of declaring Gregory of Nyssa the Father of the Fathers, someone who unambiguously taught Universal Salvation.

"(18) If anyone denies the resurrection of the dead, and the judgment, and the condign retribution to everyone, endless torment and endless bliss, etc."

Robin Parry makes the argument that Endless Torment and Annihilationism make God the ultimate Iconoclast, destroying His own Image.

None of this changes that I can't approve of the Iconophiles either.

I believe in Universal Salvation because I believe in a literal Bodily Resurrection of the Dead for EVERY person who ever has or ever will die.

So still much of what separates me from other Universalists of either the Evangelical or Orthodox variety is that I have no desire to claim affinity with Origen, I prefer to claim affinity with Gregory of Nyssa and the "Nestorians" and Gerrard Winstanly.

Monothelitism and the Sixth Ecumenical Council

The Sixth Ecumenical Council, also known as the Third Council of Constantinople, condemns two "heresies", Monoenergism and Monothelitism, and in turn affirmed Duoenergism and Duothelitism.  In laymen's terms, they decided that Christ had two Energies (Divien and Human) and two Wills (Divine and Human), and condemned teaching He had only one of either of those.

This is probably the least talked about of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.  The first two are about the beginning of Christianity as the mainstream religion of Western Civilization and a State Religion, the next two are about Schisms that still exist to this day.  The fifth exists in the context of those schisms and the internet's favorite Byzantine Emperor and is often alleged to be relevant to the debate about Universal Salvation. And the Seventh and Final one is a dispute the protestant reformation reignited.  However the sixth is about things modern English speakers have trouble even comprehending what they're talking about.

It seems people who do comment on it feel this decision was the logical follow up to the Fourth Ecumenical Council, Chalcedon, where it was decided Christ had two Natures (Divine and Human).  However the Calcedonian Definition also says Christ is one "Person", as in "Personality". indeed Chalcedonians and Miaphysites base their condemnation of Nestorious and Theodore of Mopsuesta on the accusation that they split Jesus' Person in two, that accusation however is false.

While it might be correct to assume one's position on Christ's "Energy" should be the same as His Nature (I have no idea what "Energy" even means in this context).  I feel one's "Will" is definitely part of their Person not their Nature.

Both these controversies had their origins during the reign of Heraclius and his Patriarch of Constantinople Sergius.  Monoenergism came first, and indeed when arguing for it Sergius added that "the doctrine of two energies could lead to the erroneous belief that Jesus has two conflicting wills".[9] Suggesting that the default position before anyone disputed it was Jesus having One Will.

I stumbled upon an Orthodox Blog insinuating that Calvinism basically teaches a form of Monothelitism (while assuming it's condemnation as Heresy was valid).  However I feel both Calvinism and Arminianism are founded upon an erroneous assumption that Divine and Human Will conflict with each other, and only disagree on which Will prevails in the end.

In my view Jesus has One Will, that All shall be Saved.

Update November 2019: Energy or Action?

Doing some more reading on this I've seen "Energy" in reference to this dispute being alternatively translated "activity" or "operation".  As if while one issue is about Christ's Will, the other is about how He Acts on said Will.

If that's what it's about then I definitely feel I should take the same stance on Monoenergism as I do on Monotheletism.  Like Duoenergism is how Arminians can agree with me that God Wills everyone to be saved but can still act in opposition to that will because of Human Will.

But again I'm unsure what "Energy" even meant in these contexts.

Update August 2020: If however "Energy" means the same thing Sailor Moon is talking about when it talks about Energy, that it would make sense to take the same position on as you would Christ's Nature.

Update October 2020: from looking at the New Testament's usage of various forms of this word and how it gets translated the Activity and Operation meaning seems to be correct.  

So I have to say I'm willing to identify as both a Monothelite and a Monoenergist.

Semi-Arianism and the Second Ecumenical Council

The first Canon of the First Council of Constantinople is commonly read as follows, emphasis mine.

The Faith of the Three Hundred and Eighteen Fathers assembled at Nice in Bithynia shall not be set aside, but shall remain firm.  And every heresy shall be anathematized, particularly that of the Eunomians or [Anomæans, the Arians or] Eudoxians, and that of the Semi-Arians or Pneumatomachi, and that of the Sabellians, and that of the Marcellians, and that of the Photinians, and that of the Apollinarians.

However some variants read "Macedonians" instead of "Semi-Arians" and most scholars believe that is probably the original reading.  The context and grammar here clearly intends to use this name as a synonym for the Pneumatomachi who were founded by a Macedonius, and every other Hersey on this list is identified by it's founder.  Macedonius may have also qualified as a type of Semi-Arian but the heresy he's uniquely associated with is denying the Divinity of The Holy Spirit.

Also the term "Semi-Arian" was probably not actually used at the time of the Council, it seems like a term scholars made up later to refer to various attempted compromises between the Nicene position of Athanasius and proper Arianism.

There were different forms of Semi-Arianism, many opposed the term Homusian as much as the proper Arians, but others did not.  Indeed some were specially trying to make their Semi-Arianism compatible with the Nicene Creed.  Meletius of Antioch was the main example of this variety, many will deny he qualified as Semi-Arian but he was opposed by Athanasius and within Antioch by the students of Eustathius.

The basic gist of Semi-Arianism is believing Jesus was Begotten before or at the beginning of Creation.  That in essence He did already exist as the Word of God before then, but this Begetting was the beginning of His existence as a distinct Person.

People constantly present the history of the Second Ecumenical Council as when even Semi-Arianism was condemned as no longer compatible with Orthodoxy.  But the additions to the Nicene Creed tied to this Council are mainly focused on addressing other heresies with a different focus, particularly issues related to The Holy Spirit.

In fact, if anything, Semi-Arianism is more compatible with the Nicene-Constantinople Creed then it was the Original Creed.  Both versions refer to Jesus being "Begotten not Made", but in the original Nicene Creed it's entirely possible to interpret the Begetting as being in reference to His being Begotten in Mary's Womb at the Incarnation, in fact I hope that was exactly the intent.  The Constantinople version however declares that Jesus was...

 "Begotten of The Father before all Aions(Eons/Ages, commonly mistranslated Worlds)".

That declaration is not only compatible with Semi-Arianism, but I would argue is inherently Semi-Arian.  The only way to make this compatible with proper Athanasianism is to say that The Word already had a distinct personality before this Pre-Creation Begetting, but why would that be the case?  What's the point of this Begetting in that case?

Just take a look at this Arian Compromise Creed proposed by the 359 Council of Seleucia.

We confess then, and believe in one God the Father Almighty, the Maker of heaven and earth, and of things visible and invisible. We believe also in his Son our Lord Jesus Christ, who was begotten of him without passion before all ages, God the Word, the only-begotten of God, the Light, the Life, the Truth, the Wisdom: through whom all things were made which are in the heavens and upon the earth, whether visible or invisible. We believe that he took flesh of the holy Virgin Mary, at the end of the ages, in order to abolish sin; that he was made man, suffered for our sin, and rose again, and was taken up into the heavens, to sit at the right hand of the Father, whence he will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. We believe also in the Holy Spirit, whom our Lord and Saviour has denominated the Comforter, and whom he sent to his disciples after his departure, according to his promise: by whom also he sanctifies all believers in the church, who are baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Those who preach anything contrary to this creed, we regard as aliens from the catholic church.

It is awfully close to the Nicene-Constantinople Creed on this issue at least with the only significant difference being the lack of Homoousion.

My study into the history of Emperor Theodosius I implies to me a compromise settlement is what he was going for on the Arian debate, but not one that could be seen as in any way a rejection of Nicaea.  His support of Meletius of Antioch is evidence of that.  Also the second canon of the council explicitly tolerates the Arianism of the Council of Rimmi which was that of the Germanciii Barbarians, and the later Theodsian Code further upheld that.  Theodosius was politically motivated by wanting peace with the Barbarian Arians.

The Scriptural Basis usually cited for this Pre-Creation Begetting is Proverbs 8:22-29 and sometimes Psalm 45:1.  The idea that Proverbs 8 refers to a Pre-Creation Begetting of Jesus goes back at least as far as Tertullian in Against Praxeas Chapter 5. They've also used Psalm 110:3 and Psalm 2.

Building Doctrine on something you can only find even alluded to in Poetic books is very shaky.  Especially ones written by the highly suspect Solomon.  But these Greek Christians were also basing this on the Septuagint Greek Translations of these chapters, the Masoretic/KJV/YLT readings don't support this interpretation, Psalm 110 doesn't say "begat" in the Hebrew.  Also I believe Wisdom in Proverbs 8 is The Holy Spirit not Jesus.  Regardless Psalm 110:3 actually supports my view by specifically referring to the Womb in all versions.

As far as Jesus being called the "Firstborn of Creation", the Firstborn is a status sometimes given in the Hebrew Bible to individuals who were not literally the Firstborn like Joseph.  It is only because of the Incarnation that Jesus qualifies as being "born" at all, but he's The Firstborn because of Who He Is not when He was born.

Jesus was called the Beginning, but that doesn't mean He had a Beginning, it just means that Creation Began with His actions, as I talked about a few days ago.  When Jesus said "Before Abraham was I Am" even if you question that as a direct reference to the I Am of the Torah, it implies not just preexistence but a lack of beginning, He didn't just say He existed before Abraham.  I've also already talked about how John 1:3 proves Jesus isn't a created being, if He created everything that was created then He Himself wasn't created.

So if they wanted to rule out even Semi-Arianism, they should have done the opposite of what they did on the Begetting issue and clarified Jesus's only Begetting was in the Womb of Mary, while affirming Him as Co-Eternal with The Father.

The Calcedonian Definition also contains this Semi-Arian statement "before the ages begotten of the Father as to the Godhead", this issue is not really relevant to the main issue Chalcedon was discussing, but still, Chalcedonian Christianity is officially Semi-Arian.

I want to further show that the begetting of Jesus can only be in The Womb of Mary.

Hebrews 11 refers to Isaac as Abraham's "Only Begotten" (same Greek term used in John 3:16) Son at the time of the Offering of Isaac in Genesis 22.  The Author of Hebrews (who I believe was Paul who talked about Hagar in Galatians, but regardless of that) clearly knew enough about Genesis to know Ishmael was alive at this time.

Judges 8 refers to the 70 sons of Gideon's Wives as being Begotten but not Abimelech the son of the Concubine.

So contrary to what we at first assume, being a Begotten Son at least in part technically depends on having the right Mother, of being the Son of a Wife rather then a Concubine.  YHWH's Wife is Israel, Mary is an Israelite.  So Jesus is the only Begotten Son of God because He is The Son of an Israelite.

Every Old Testament example of Jesus being called a Son either of God or of Man or of David is prophetic including Psalm 2, as is any reference to Him being Begotten, in the present tense the Second Person of The Hebrew Bible's Trinity is The Word of YHWH and The Angel of YHWH.  

John 1 likewise doesn't use Monogenes till it describes the Incarnation in verse 14.

Other Platonic Heresies also factor into this.  With both early Patristics and modern Christian Philosophers arguing that since God does not "Change" then The Father was always a Father and The Son was always a Son.  However this way of defining God is incompatible with Hebrew Theology, The Hebrew Bible tells us that YHWH "repented' a number of times.  That God Is Love is what doesn't Change.  The Father was already Father in The Hebrew Bible because He was a Father to Humanity and to Israel.  But the Logos was not yet The Son.

Update September 30th 2020: So the Nicene-Constantinople Creed was not actually formally a part of the Second Ecumenical Council, it was in fact unheard of until Chalcedon in 451, the Council of Ephesus 20 years earlier was still using the original Nicene Creed.

The Doctrine in question was still partially popularized by that Council since it indirectly affirmed the Creed of Rimmi as acceptable which includes the same clause, and it was also taught by Cyril of Alexandria.  It's possible this Creed was before Chalcedon just a Creed used locally in the area of Constantinople.  It actually seems like it's possibly a hybridization of the original Nicene Creed and the Creed of the 360 Council of Constantinople.

And the thing is this "begotten before all ages" doctrine was part of how Arius expressed his theology from the beginning, it was in his Profession of Faith from 320 AD.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arian_creeds

The decision not to include it in the original Nicene Creed must have been intentional, unfortunately we don't have the minutes of the council to document for us if it was discussed.  And we don't have the minutes of this Council either.

The fact is too many people have it in their heads that Homousian is the core of the Arian Controversy when originally that word wasn't a factor at all.  That's why now I've seen Catholic and Orthodox blogs discussing this phrase as if it's inherently Anti-Arian even though Arius himself taught it.  

The root of the Arian Heresy is the Platonic Theology of Timaeus where The Monad is the original supreme God but a lesser Demiurge who emanates from the Monad is the Creator.  Arius used the word Monad in his Profession of Faith, but didn't use Demiurge since that term had come to be associated with the Gnostics.  Philo of Alexandria referred to his version of the Demiurge as The Logos and identified it with The Angle of The Lord, Third Century Neoplatonists also used the word Logos in a similar way.  The Heretic Cerinthus was perhaps the first Christian Heretic to teach a version of this.  But Arius's ideas probably more directly descended from Origen's.

I've decided this statement is no longer my only objection to the revised Creed.  The "One Baptism" comment also contradicts Scripture.  And the "One Apostolic Church" comment is technically acceptable but I know what they meant by it is something I don't like.

I still support all the additions about The Holy Spirit (but not the Western Filioque) and the "Kingdom Shall Have no End" statement.  But I also wish that like the Old Roman Symbol and Apostles Creed it included a clarification that the Resurrection is Bodily/Of The Flesh.

I'm not interested in whether or not I agree with the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

 First, for people who don't know what I'm referring to.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_seven_ecumenical_councils

I want to state that this goes both ways, I'm not so Anarchic that I'm gonna act like whatever decision the councils made must be wrong, that attitude also gives them too much power.  I feel like I basically agree with the main Theological decisions of the first four Ecumenical Councils, but those Councils also made smaller decisions on things like Church Hierarchy that I can't get behind.  The issue around which the 6th Council was convened I haven't even looked into enough to know if I'd have an opinion on it.  The rest are issues I have and will continue to look into on this Blog.

To me The Bible is not just the Final Authority but the only Authority. Now people will point to Acts 15 as Biblical Support for the idea of Church Councils.  First of all that Council was attended by The Apostles, I've already refuted the notion that Apostolic Authority can be passed on.  So this is the only Council that has Apostolic Authority, and it's decision and historical context is recorded for us in Scripture.

But secondly, even if you convinced me some Councils, like the Pre-Nicene/Pre-Constantine ones, mattered even a little bit.  The Ecumenical Councils wee in direct violation of passages like 1 Corinthians 6 and Matthew 18 that forbid Christians from turning to Civil Authorities to settle disputes.  It doesn't matter if a head of state is a Christian, their authority is Civil not Ecclesiastical.  The Council of Nicaea was presided over by Constantine himself, and the Bishops asked him to do it, maybe because they felt he'd be a neutral party.  Constantine was not Baptized till he was on his death bed.  To me Baptism has nothing to do with Salvation, but to most Ecumenical Council affirming Christians you at least have to be Baptized to be considered a part of The Church.

The second Ecumenical Council was convened by the Emperor who first made Christianity the state religion of the Empire for the purpose of defining what his new state religion was.  The first Council of Ephesus basically became two councils and it was Theodosius II who decided which one was right.  Chalecdon wasn't even headed by a Bishop but by a committee of Senators and government officials  The 5th Ecumenical Council was entirely a product of Justinian's misguided agenda to try and fix the Chalcedonian schism by further pushing away the Nesotrians and others who were simply associated with them.

So for this reason the Ecumenical councils are the least authoritative councils not the most.  They are The Church marrying the State, the Sin of Pergamos.

There is also debate about how many of these even fit what the word "Ecumenical" is supposed to mean.  The first two councils held in Constantinople had less then half as many attendees as Nicaea.  For Nicaea Constantine had invited 1,800 Bishops, 1000 in the east and 800 in the west, but only 318 max showed up.  Now it'd be easy for a moderner to throw a "if you don't vote you can't complain" argument at those who didn't attend, but maybe the majority of Bishops actually understood the Biblical Arguments against doing a council like this I laid out above.  Only 5 Bishops represented the entire Western half of the Empire.

One Bishop known to be missing is Lyon's, Lyon was the oldest Church in Gaul the one founded by Irenaeus and other immigrants from Asia Minor but principally Smyrna in the second century.  But neither Maximus of Lyon or Tetradius of Lyon attended instead Gaul was represented by a Bishop of a much less significant city, Nicasius of Die.  We also know Britannia had 3 bishops at this time including one for York, but whether or not any attended Nicaea is disputed.  But it's not just looking West, East of the Empire there were Papa bar Aggai and Simeon Bar Sabbae leading the Church in Babylonia/Persia, there's no evidence they attended the council either.

The 7th and last Council had only 35 attendees and no Frankish Bishops were represented which agitated Charlemagne.  Only Chalcedon had significantly more attendees then the first one, and that was still only 520.  The 3rd and 4th Councils caused Schisms, not even everyone who attended consented to their outcomes.

The fact is I don't consider any of the issues these Councils debated all that important to whether one is a "True Christian" or not.  Now ultimately nothing besides if you call Jesus Lord and believe He's the Son of God matters to if you're a "True Christian" or not.  In other words there pretty much are no false Christians in my view, I firmly believe that because of 1 John 4:15 and 1 Corinthians 12:3.

But even after that the issues discussed at these Councils are not at the top of the list of issues I consider it important to be right on.  Being right on the issue of The Bodily Resurrection and Soterology are certainly above them in importance based on 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 5.

Some of my allies on Universal Salvation insist they don't want to make it a core essential doctrine of the Faith, and yet are certainly Ecumenical Christians to some extent.  To me being right or wrong on this issue is ultimately more important even then if you're right on The Trinity.  And after those two vital issues I may even consider the Virgin Birth and Pre-Millenialism more important then The Trinity.

Again to be clear my view of the Trinity is a Nicene one, especially in the context of my research into Old Testament Trinity passages.  But I am sympathetic to those at the Council who weren't even slightly Arian but still uncomfortable with the word Homusias because it was Unbiblical and condemned by an earlier Pre-Nicene council for it's association with Modalism, and some claim it was Constantine himself who insisted on this word being in the Creed.

And there are some passages like Hebrews 1-2 that I'm not sure how to refute the Arian interpretation of.  So I can't consider people like Arians or Unitarians damnable heretics, especially not the ones around today who are with me on Universal Salvation.

I know I may be reinforcing the notion among critics of Universal Salvation that it is a heresy by  admitting to it making me feel some kinship with Untarians and Mormons.  But my point is you should consider Salvation more important whatever your position on Salvation is.  And no Universal Salvation is not a reason for me to break with the Ecumenical Councils, the 7th and final one declared Gregory of Nyssa a "Father of the Fathers", and numerous people have already debunked the notion that Universal Salvation was condemned by the fifth council.  (It's not an Ecumenical Council but the council of Orange condemned both Pelagianism and Double-Predestination equally.) C Baxter Kruger very strongly ties The Trinity to his view of Universal Salvation.

Soteorlogy was not directly the subject of any of the Ecumenical Councils, though I know Ryan Reeves likes to explain how it's all indirectly relevant. But the fact is none of these hard to understand nuances of Theology or Christology matter so long as you simply believe what The Bible says about Jesus being without Sin and dying for our Sins and being Risen to a Bodily Resurrection.

Protestant Christianity is divided between three different positions on the Councils.  The Anglican Church and I think some others uphold all Seven of them.  Some other High Church Protestants like Lutherans uphold the first four but not the last three.  (I'd like to know more about their reasons for doing so, I haven't looked into it yet.)  And then there are people like Independent Baptists and the Hebrew Roots movement who like me don't feel bound to any of them, though too many of those take the overly contrary attitude I also warned about at the start.

I've coined the term Justinianity for all denominations that uphold the fifth Ecumenical Council (to my knowledge there are none that keep the 5th but drop either of the final two).  That's Roman Catholicism, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Anglican Church, and maybe some others.

John 1:3 refutes Arianism regardless of John 1:1

Even if you can justify an "a god" translation of John 1:1, John 1:3 says The Word created everything that was created, therefore The Word can't be a created being.

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

That's the KJV translation.

I've been looking into the Coptic texts of the Gospel attributed to John for various reasons.  And I've found JWs will use Coptic Texts of John 1:1 to support their translation of that verse.  But the same Coptic texts have this same implication in John 1:3.

Everything came into being through him, and without him nothing came into being. That which came into being

https://depts.washington.edu/cartah/text_archive/coptic/coptjohn.shtml

Even the JWs own translation doesn't solve this implication of John 1:3.

 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/john/1/

When discussing the Nicene Creed it's often made out as if in that Creed only the word Homousias makes Arianism incompatible with it.  (Of course that word only conflicts with Arianism in an Ancient Greek Platonic conception of what Divine Substance meant, to us every Son is made of the Substance of their parents.)  In fact full Proper Arianism is incompatible with the Creed simply from saying "begotten, not made", Arius and JWs see Jesus as a Created Being.

Now Semi-Arianism may accept the "begotten, not made" part, but some Semi-Arians were fine with Homousias as well.

Constantine and the Council of Nicaea

In Protestant, Evangelical and Hebrew Roots sects of Christianity it is popular to vilify Constantine.  I consider myself to some decree part of the last two of those groups.  Yet my view of Constantine is different.

I'm by no means inclined to view Constantine as the ideal Christian or an Ideal Ruler.  But I think the extent to which many people pin everything they don't like about mainstream Christianity on Constantine greatly oversimplifies things.

All the core doctrines of Catholicism had their seeds planted among the Church Fathers who came before Constantine.  The reverence for the Greek Philosophy of Plato, Aristotle and Philo had already started.  And to varying decrees so did the desire to reconcile Christianity with Rome.

Constantine did not formally make Christianity the state religion.  In fact the Edict of Milan was actually an edict granting Freedom of Religion to all Religions.

"When you see that this has been granted to [Christians] by us, your Worship will know that we have also conceded to other religions the right of open and free observance of their worship for the sake of the peace of our times, that each one may have the free opportunity to worship as he pleases; this regulation is made that we may not seem to detract from any dignity of any religion."

The common statement that Christianity didn't become the State Religion till Theodosius I is also perhaps an oversimplification.  Christianity had certainly become a state sponsored religion before then.  But only Gratian removed the state sponsored status of any element of the old Roman Religion.

It is with Theodosius I that Christianity as the state religion to the exclusion of other faiths began.

The original Nicene Creed of 325 AD contains nothing I object to (I just did a post defending the Homoousion doctrine).  Nor anything I would expect to be objected to by most Protestants, Evangelicals, or other Christians who like to vilify Constantine and use Pre-Nicene and Post-Nicene to distinguish which Early Church Fathers they consider worth quoting.

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. 

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, 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 [both in heaven and on earth]; Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

And in the Holy Ghost.

[But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'— they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.]"

Later the Creed was revised at the Council of Constantinople of 381 AD under Theodosius I.

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; from thence he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead. ; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets.

In one holy catholic and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen."

I don't mind the removing the Condemnation part.  As a former supporter of Eternal Security and now a Universalist, I have no desire to question the Faith of people I disagree with, even Arians.

It is mainly the last paragraph I object to, firmly establishing a terrestrially organized Church.

[Update: Turns out I do have another issue with this revision.]

The other differences seem to be influenced by the earlier Old Roman Symbol and Rule of Faith creeds that goes back to the Second Century.

The Donations of Constantine were a forgery made by the Roman Catholic Church, though it gets used by Papal Antichrist theorists.  That Constantine moved the Capital from Rome to Constantineople makes him if anything more a founder of the Eastern Orthodox Church more then the Roman Church.

Theodosius I made Christianity the state religion and outlawed other faiths with the Edict of Thesselonica.  I'm surprised more Historicists and other Papal Antichrist theorists haven't made a big deal out of that Edict being in the same city Paul directed his most Eschatologically concerned Epistles to.

However I feel Justinian's reign was equally important to formalizing what I consider corrupt mainstream Christianity.  It was under his reign that Universalism was first condemned as a Heresy.

Update Aprils 7th 2017: Thing is while I agree with the Nicean Creed, other decisions the Council of Nicea made I'm not too fond of. Like their further elaborating on Ingaitus Church Governmental Scripture. 

InspiringPhilosophy's video on Nicea is pretty good.