Back to Mormonism Researched Page

Background to Creeds Lacking Revelation

Research by Kerry A. Shirts

I have gathered the information on the backgrounds to the Creeds of Christianity. I have used the websites extensively, and have given the addresses where this information can be found. My initial incentive for finding out what went on was the claim that the creeds were given by revelation from God. I doubted this sincerely, and hence began my search. I have found some interesting confessions and historical notes from those men who actually participated in the formation of the Creeds themselves. There is not a hint at receiving any kind of revelation at all, but rather a convening of synods, councils, etc. wherein the emperor either forced attendance, or else wistfully wrote others to join in as their voice was needed to hammer out the doctrines and controversies. The websites can be a marvelous source of information on the history of Christianity, I believe it is time we all start using them more instead of Christians making ribaldly unsubstantiated claims for future discussions.

THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY,

BY SOCRATES SCHOLASTICUS.

Website address: http://www.csn.net/advent/fathers/26.txt

The Dispute of Arius with Alexander, his Bishop.

AFTER Peter, bishop of Alexandria, had suffered martyrdom under Diocletian, Achillas was installed in the episcopal office, whom Alexander succeeded, during the period of peace above referred to. He, in the fearless exercise of his functions for the instruction and government of the Church, attempted one day in the presence of the presbytery and the rest of his clergy, to explain, with perhaps too philosophical minuteness, that great theological mystery- the UNITY of the Holy Trinity. A certain one of the presbyters under his jurisdiction, whose name was Arius, possessed of no inconsiderable logical acumen, imaging that the bishop was subtly teaching the same view of this subject as Sabellius the Libyan, from love of controversy took the opposite opinion to that of the Libyan, and as he thought vigorously responded to what was said by the bishop. 'If,' said he, 'the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he had his substance from nothing.'

***Kerry comments: Notice here that it was by philosophizing and showing off their own "logical acumen", and that far from having a love of truth, the incentive for the disputation is "love of controversy." This is hardly revelation, rather a showmans paradise of one-upmanship.***

CHAPTER VI.

Division begins in the Church firm this Controversy; and Alexander Bishop of Alexandria excommunicates Arius and his Adherents.

HAVING drawn this inference from his novel train of reasoning, he excited many to a consideration of the question; and thus from a little spark a large fire was kindled: for the evil which began in the Church at Alexandria, ran throughout all Egypt, Libya, and the upper Thebes, and at length diffused itself over the rest of the provinces and cities. Many others also adopted the opinion of Arius; but Eusebius in particular was a zealous defender of it: not he of Caesarea, but the one who had before been bishop of the church at Berytus, and was then somehow in possession of the bishopric of Nicomedia in Bithynia. When Alexander became conscious of these things, both from his own observation and from report, being exasperated to the high of his heresy; at the same time he wrote as follows to the bishops constituted in the several cities:

***Kerry Comments: Notice again what Socrates says! From such a small spark and controversie the fires of argument raged, and that throughout all the land, not just at Alexandria. Where is revelation spokien of? It is nowhere to be found at all. How did they discuss things? By "his novel train of reasoning", without revelation.***

The Emperor Constantine being grieved at the Disturbance of the Churches, sends Hosius the Spaniard to Alexandria, exhorting the Bishop and Arius to Reconciliation and Unity.

WHEN the emperor was made acquainted with fortune, immediately exerted himself to extinguish the conflagration which had been kindled, and sent a letter to Alexander and Arius by a trustworthy person named Hosius, who was bishop of Cordova, in Spain. The emperor greatly loved this man and held him in the highest estimation. It will not be out of place to introduce here a portion of this letter, the whole of which is given in the life of Constantine by Eusebius.

Victor Constantine Maximum Augustus to Alexander and Arius.

I am informed that your present controversy originated thus. When you, Alexander, inquired of your presbyters what each thought on a certain inexplicable passage of the written Word, rather on a subject improper for discussion; and you, Arius rashly gave expression to a view of the matter such as ought either never to have been conceived, or when suggested to your mind, it became you to bury it in silence. This dispute hating thus been excited among you, communion has been denied; and the most holy people being rent into two factions, have departed from the harmony of the common body. Wherefore let each one of you, showing consideration for the other, listen to the impartial exhortation of your fellow-servant. And what counsel does he offer? It was neither prudent at first to agitate such a question, nor to reply to such a question when proposed: for the claim of no law demands the investigation of such subjects, but the idle useless talk of leisure occasions them. And even if they should exist for the sake of exercising our natural faculties, yet we ought to confine them to our own consideration, and not incautiously bring them forth in public assemblies, nor thoughtlessly confide them to the ears of everybody. Indeed how few are capable either of adequately ex-pounding, or even accurately understanding the import of matters so vast and profound!

And even if any one should be considered able to satisfactorily accomplish this, how large a portion of the people would he succeed in convincing? Or who can grapple with the subtilties of such investigations without danger of lapsing into error? It becomes us therefore on such topics to check loquacity, lest either on account of the weakness of our nature we should be incompetent to explain the subject proposed; or the dull understanding of the audience should make them unable to apprehend dearly what is attempted to be taught: and in the case of one or the other of these failures, the people must be necessarily involved either in blasphemy or schism. Wherefore let an unguarded question, and an inconsiderate answer, on the part of each of you, procure equal forgiveness from one another. No cause of difference has been started by you beating on any important precept contained in the Law; nor has any new heresy been introduced by you in connection with the worship of God; but ye both hold one and the same judgment on these points, which is the Creed. Moreover, while you thus pertinaciously contend with one another about matters of small or scarcely the least importance, it is unsuitable for you to have charge of so many people of God, because you are divided in opinion: and not only is it unbe-coming, but it is also believed to be altogether unlawful.

In order to remind you of your duty by an example of an inferior kind, I may say: you are well aware that even the philosophers themselves are united under one sect. Yet they often differ from each other on some parts of their theories: but although they may differ on the very highest branches of science, in order to maintain the unity of their body, they still agree to coalesce. Now, if this is done amongst them, how much more equitable will it be for you, who have been constituted ministers of the Most High God, to become unanimous with one another in such a religious profession. But let us examine with closer consideration, and deeper attention, what has been already stated. Is it right on account of insignificant and vain contentions between you about words, that brethren should be set in opposition against brethren; and that the honorable communion should be distracted by unhallowed dissension, through our striving with one another respecting things so unimportant, and by no means essential? These quarrels are vulgar and rather consistent with puerile thoughtlessness, than suitable to the intelligence of priests and prudent men. We should spontaneously turn aside from the temptations of the devil. The great God and Saviour of us all has extended to all the common light.

***Kerry's comment: Notice what the Emperor says here. He positively claims that all this showmanship and showing off with fancy philosophical language is what the problem was! It was a pernicious evil. It caused divisions and meanness, and was not understood by the common folk at all, and hence should not be indulged in. And this letter is written to the men who were to help form the creeds! Well where is there revelation claimed in all this? What a tongue lashing given to the men of the church from a converted pagan!***

There were among the bishops two of extraordinary celebrity Paphnutius, bishop of Upper Thebes, and Spyridon, bishop of Cyprus: why I have so particular referred to these two individuals, I shall state hereafter. Many of the laity were also present, who were practiced in the art of reasoning, and each eager to advocate the cause of his own party. Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, as was before said, supported the opinion of Arius, together with Theognis and Maris; of these the former was bishop of Nicaea, and Maris of Chalcedon in Bithynia. These were powerfully opposed by Athnasius, a deacon of the Alexandrian church, who was highly esteemed by Alexander his bishop, and on that account was much envied, as will be seen hereafter. Now a short time previous to the general assembling of the bishops, the disputants engaged in preparatory logical contests before the multitudes; and when many were attracted by the interest of their discourse, one of the laity, a confessor, who was a man of unsophisticated understanding reproved these reasoners, telling them that Christ and his apostles did not teach us dialectics, art, nor vain subtilties, but simple-mindedness, which is preserved by faith and good works. As he said this, all present admired the speaker and assented to the justice of his remarks; and the disputants themselves, after hearing his plain statement of the truth, exercised a greater degree of moderation: thus then was the disturbance caused by these logical debates suppressed at this time.

***Kerry's Comment: Now this is most, most interesting! As the philosophically minded Christian logicians were disputing and showing off, one of the old believers stands, rebukes them, bears his testimony that this is *NOT* the proper method of Christ and the Apostles! So far had they come down away from the days of revelation. And what's more, the philosophers were corrected, and clamed down, but only for a time. The simpler faith and good works, were abandoned later for philosophy and subtle language even to adapting Greek terms to describe God, which were never used by Christ nor the Apostles.***

THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF THEODORET

Website address: http://www.csn.net/advent/fathers/27.txt

the Church in Alexandria was ruled for a short time by Achillas. He was succeeded by Alexander, who proved himself a noble defender of the doctrines of the gospel. At that time, Arius, who had been enrolled in the list of the presbytery, and entrusted with the exposition of the Holy Scriptures, fell a prey to the assaults of jealousy, when he saw that the helm of the high priesthood was committed to Alexander. Stung by this passion, he sought opportunities for dispute and contention; and, although he perceived that Alexander's irreproachable conduct forbade his bringing any charges against him, envy would not allow him to rest. In him the enemy of the truth found an instrument whereby to stir and agitate the angry waters of the Church, and persuaded him to oppose the apostolical doctrine of Alexander.

***Kerry's Comment: So through jealousy the controversy arises. What a feeble excuse, yet this small spark caused the entire conflagration of Christianity, that has not abated into our own day 1600 years later! Notice what Christ's reaction had been to his own Apostles who also vied for position and authority in the church. He told them that the servant would wash the feet of others. Did this happen at the occassion outlined above and below? We should all live so long!******

The Epistle of Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria to Alexander, Bishop of Constantinople. "To his most revered and likeminded brother Alexander, Alexander sendeth greeting in the Lord.

"Impelled by avarice and ambition, evil-minded persons have ever plotted against the wellbeing of the most important dioceses. Under various pretexts, they attack the religion of the Church; and, being maddened by the devil, who works in them, they start aside from all piety according to their own pleasure, and trample under foot the fear of the judgment of God. Suffering as I do from them myself, I deem it necessary to inform your piety, that you may be on your guard against them, lest they or any of their party should presume to enter your diocese (for these cheats are skilful in deception), or should circulate false and specious letters, calculated to delude one who has devoted himself to the simple and undefiled faith.

They then ran hither and thither to form cabals against us, even addressing themselves to our fellow-ministers who were of one mind with us, under the pretence of seeking peace and unity with them, but in truth endeavouring by means of fair words, to sweep some among them away into their own disease. They ask them to write a wordy letter, and then read the contents to those whom they have deceived, in order that they may not retract, but be confirmed in their impiety, by finding that bishops agree with and support their views. They make no acknowledgment of the evil doctrines and practices for which they have been expelled by us, but they either impart them without comment, or carry on the deception by fallacies and forgeries. Thus concealing their destructive doctrine by persuasive and meanly truckling language, they catch the unwary, and lose no opportunity of calumniating our religion.

***Kerry's comment" Which is exactly why we Mormons claim the apostasy occurred. "Persuasive and truckling language" indeed is the culprit, compared to the earlier pristine, simple faith and doctrines simply declared through revelation and testimony, as opposed to the philosophers wrangling for untold tens of thousands of pages. Look at the websites I have here if you think I am kidding! Did it take Christ so long and with such an arduous process to tell about God? Without revelation, men's search for God is futile, as Christian history demonstrates most effectively. Paul had prophesied of just such kind of language as the apostasy- see below.***

THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF SALAMINIUS HERMIAS SOZOMENUS.

THE bishops held long consultations; and after summoning Arius before them, they made an accurate test of his propositions; they were intently on their guard, not to come to a vote on either side. When at length the appointed day arrived on which it had been decided to settle the doubtful points, they assembled together in the palace, because the emperor had signified his intention of taking part in the deliberations. When he was in the same place with the priests, he passed through to the head of the conference, and seated himself on the throne which had been prepared for him, and the synod was then commanded to be seated; for seats had been arranged on either side along the walls of the palatial rooms, for it was the largest, and excelled the other chambers.

When Constantine returned to Byzantium, certain philosophers came to him to complain of the innovations in religion, and particularly of his having introduced a new form of worship into the state, contrary to that followed by his forefathers, and by all who were formerly in power, whether among the Greeks or the Romans. They likewise desired to hold a disputation on the doctrine with Alexander the bishop; and he, although unskilled in such argumentative contests, and perhaps persuaded by his life, seeing that he was an excellent and good man, accepted the struggle at the command of the emperor. When the philosophers were assembled, since every one wished to engage in the discussion, he requested that one whom they esteemed worthy might be chosen as spokesman, while the others were to remain silent. When one of the philosophers began to open the debate, Alexander said to him, "I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ not to speak." The man was instantaneously silenced. It is then right to consider whether it is a greater miracle that a man, and he a philosopher, should so easily be silenced by a word, or that a stone-wall should be cleft by the power of a word, which miracle I have heard some attribute to Julian, surnamed the Chaldean.

***Kerry's comment: Where is there any talk of revelation from God at all? This is the wrangling and disputing of jealous and small hearted, narrow minded, and short-sighted philosophers, which corrupted the faith as they themselves had recognized, and which Paul had prophesied about concerning the church. (see below)***

Constantine was also deeply grieved at the diversity of opinion which prevailed concerning the celebration of the Passover; for some of the cities in the East differed on this point, although they did not withhold from communion with one another; they kept the festival more according to the manner of the Jews, and as was natural by this divergence, detracted from the splendor of the festal sacrifice. The emperor zealously endeavored to remove both these causes of dissension from the church; and thinking to be able to remove the evil before it advanced to greater proportions, be sent one who was honored for his faith, his virtuous life, and most approved in those former times... AFTER there had been many synods held in Egypt, and the contest had still continued to Increase in violence, the report of the dissension reached the palace, and Constantine was thereby greatly troubled; for just at this period, when religion was beginning to be more generally propagated, many were deterred by the difference in doctrines from embracing Christianity.

***Kerry's comment: In other words, philosophy, the darling child of the schools, did not satisfy or help the Christians whatsoever, but since revelation had ceased, they had no other choice except to adapt vain men's philosophy concerning God.***

The emperor openly charged Arius and Alexander with having originated this disturbance, and wrote to rebuke them for having made a controversy public which it was in their power to have concealed, and for having contentiously agitated a question which ought never to have been mooted, or upon which, at least, their opinion ought to have been given quietly. He told them that they ought not to have separated from others on account of difference of sentiment concerning certain points of doctrine.

***Kerry's comment: Could this type of thing had been gotten away with in the days of the Apostles? Where was the central head and authority of the church? Who was there to speak and settle the problem with revelation? With the death of the Apostles, the church was out to sea, and they knew it!***

Arius was the originator of these disputations. He was a presbyter of the church at Alexandria in Egypt, and was at first a zealous thinker about doctrine, and upheld the innovations of Melitius. Eventually, however, he abandoned this latter opinion, and was ordained deacon by Peter, bishop of Alexandria, who afterwards cast him out of the church, because when Peter anathematized the zealots of Melitius and rejected their baptism, Arius assailed him for these acts and could not be restrained in quietness. After the martyrdom of Peter, Arius asked forgiveness of Achillas, and was restored to his office as deacon, and afterwards elevated to the presbytery. Afterwards Alexander, also, held him in high repute, since he was a most expert logician; for it was said that he was not lacking in such knowledge. He fell into absurd discourses, so that he had the audacity to preach in the church what no one before him had ever suggested; namely, that the Son of God was made out of that which had no prior existence, that there was a period of time in which he existed not; that, as possessing free will, he was capable of vice and virtue, and that he was created and made: to these, many other similar assertions were added as he went forward into the arguments and the details of inquiry. Those who heard these doctrines advanced, blamed Alexander for not opposing the innovations at

variance with doctrine. But this bishop deemed it more advisable to leave each party to the free discussion of doubtful topics, so that by persuasion rather than by force, they might cease from contention.

***Kerry's comment: And here if ever, was the time for a much needed revelation. Instead, as we read in the various histories of Sozoman, Socrates, and Eusebius, the Church held synods, arguing back and forth, proclaiming one idea truth, another anathema. The various Councils never could agree on anything much without the use of force and wrangling language. The old believing Christians who knew this was not the way of Christ, were eventually dying out and the Church was left to those who were ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth as Paul had prophesied. In fact, now that we have read the various accounts from the Ecclesiastical historians of Christianity themselves, we see that they aptly qualify as fulfillers of the many prophesies of the Apostle Paul.***

At Romans 16:17, Paul says "I urge you, (parakalo) brothers and sisters, to keep an eye on those who cause dissensions and offenses, in opposition to the teaching that you have learned; avoid them." Paul was bringing this up constantly because this was the threat to the early Christian Church. He goes on to say these disputers do not serve Jesus Christ, but their own appetites, "by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the simple minded." (Romans 16:18). At Colossians 2 Paul identifies the culprits again. Note his wording. "I am saying this so that no one may deceive you with plausible arguments...continue to live your lives in him rooted and built up in him and established in the faith...see to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition..." (Colossians 2:4-8). After Paul came the creeds...i.e., "human tradition."

he says to the Galatians. "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you in the Grace of Christ and are turning to a different Gospel." (Galatians 1:6). Note Paul is not astonished at their turning away, but he is astonished that they are turning away so quickly! In all his letters Paul exhorts and admonishes those who he preaches to to learn, to study and not "wrangle and slander together with all malice..." (Ephesians 4:31), and do not be intimidated by your opponents (Philippians 1:28), and do not be "puffed up without cause by a human way of thinking" (Colossians 2:18), and Paul even identifies clearly what the works of the flesh are, instead of the works of the spirit; "jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions..." (Galatians 5:20), all of which come as a result of the philosophers "bewitching" the people (Galatians 3:1). We saw these same worldly passions with the men of the creeds above.

He says "We refuse to practice cunning or to falsify God's word." (2 Corinthians 4:2). He is bringing this up because this is what was happening to the church. After Paul leaves, others come in and thwart his own work, and falsify God's word, teaches false teachings and corrupts the church.

"Some people have deviated from these and turned to meaningless talk..." (1 Tim. 1:6). "Certain persons have suffered shipwreck in the faith." (1 Tim 1:19). Note how Paul defends himself constantly... "I am telling the truth, I am not lying." (1 Tim 2:7). He is concerned about this because others *are* lying! He says he teaches without anger and argument (1 Tim 2:8), and admonishes that Deacons (note this is officers IN the church) must not be double-tongued (1 Tim 3:8). This philosophizing was spreading like cancer throughout the church. In every single one of Paul's letters we note this tension of Paul. He is worried sick. "Have nothing to do with profane myths and old wives' tales...Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching..." (1 Tim 4:7, 16).

Paul sees the church apostatizing and warns Timothy again and again, "avoid wrangling over words, which does no good but only ruins those who are listening...avoid profane chatter... havenothing to do with stupid and sneseless controversies; you know that theybreeds quarrels..." (2 Tim 2:14, 16, 23). All of these are the exact background to the creeds of Athanasius and the Arian controversy as we have seen. Paul's insight is keen indeed!

Paul identifies the same culprits to Titus: "There are also many rebellious people, idle talkers, and deceivers... they are upsetting whole families by teaching for sordid gain what it is not right to teach... their very minds and consciences are corrupted. They profess to know God, but they deny him by their actions. (Titus 1:10). He also tells Titus "...in your teaching show integrity..." (Titus 2:7), "avoid quarreling" (Titus 3:2), avoid stupid controversies, geneologies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law...have nothing to do with anyone who causes divisions." (Titus 3:9f).

In 2 Thessalonians Paul admonishes those who are waiting for Christ's return, "do not be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either in spirit or by word or letter as from us... let no man deceive you in any way, for that day [the return of Christ] will not come unless the rebellion comes first and the lawless one is revealed..." (2 Thess. 2:1-3). Note well, Paul knew Christ would not come, unless first there was an apostasy from the truth. And he told the saints, don't be deceived on this matter, the apostasy *would* happen, because the lawless one had to be revealed and then Jesus would come again. The Thessalonians thought Christ would simply come again, but Paul knew the apostasy had to occur first.