It's good to come back to this subject here of creeds and confessions in the history of the church, and in particular we're kind of making our way to Nicaea. I hope next Lord's Day that we will be spending our time talking about the four what are often called the ecumenical councils in the fourth and fifth century of the church. For those of you who may be new to this today, we welcome you and we're kind of using this as an introduction to a study of our own church's confession which we hope to begin here in a few weeks. Ryan will kind of kick that off, teaching for a few months on the doctrine of scripture from chapter one in our confession. And to kind of make our way to the confession, we wanted to kind of back up and talk about the history of creeds and confessions in the church. So that's kind of where we are. Now, we have been, last week, we started this particular portion of the study looking and religion. And we spent our hour last week looking at the political landscape of the 4th century. We began looking at Diocletian and the establishment of what was called the Tetrarchy, a period of what is labeled the Great Persecution of the Church there in the early part of the 4th century. moving through Constantine and a few others, culminating toward the end of the 4th century in the reign of Theodosius I, under whose reign Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. Under Constantine, early in the century, it became a legitimate or a legal religion, therefore it was afforded some level of toleration, but by the end of the 4th century Christianity was the official religion of the Roman Empire. So that was a little bit about the political landscape. Today we want to look at the religious landscape of the 4th century. There is some And certainly many things in the realm of politics, especially, were often very religious, whether it was Constantine making the religion legal or Julian the apostate, as we saw, bringing back and reestablishing paganism. or Theodosius making it the official religion of the empire. When we look at religion, we're going to talk still, you'll see there is a little political overlap in this because, for example, as they move into the 4th and 5th century when the councils are convened, when they're called, all the councils that are convened and called are called by the emperor. The emperor calls them. It's not, you might think, I thought the pope would have called those. No, the pope did not call those because there was no pope. But that's a whole other series of studies, all right? But the emperors called them. Constantine calls and pays for the travel and the accommodations of all the bishops that come to the Council of Nicaea there in 325. So there's still some political overlap. So to take a religious look at the fourth century, we want to do three things. We're going to talk a little bit about history, and this is a nice big long word that I've kind of made up, homo, homoousianisms, and say that, you know, three times really fast. You shouldn't do it when someone's around. And if you get bored tonight and can't go to sleep, you can think about that word itself. It's kind of soothing. It'll put you to sleep. And then we want to talk about some high points, just kind of hit some high points through this century to kind of look at the religious landscape. Well, when we think about history, right, now we've already talked about political history, but it's important to just kind of remind ourselves of that framework again. We want to look at ecclesiastical history, and we want to look at history maybe by the vantage point of theology, right, the theological view of history. So thinking ecclesiastically, I want to begin with my little very impressive map. Thank you. I got a thumbs up from Paul. Paul is a map guy. You didn't know that. You need a map made, go see Paul. I should have called Paul. Obviously, you're all thinking right now, you should have called Paul pastor this week. Well, this little map that I've got here, what I'm trying to do here is highlight various centers of ecclesiastical power in the fourth century, all right? We start off at the bottom right-hand side. You probably know what that is. That's Jerusalem, right? And Jerusalem has that point of primacy because this is where the church is born. They're in Acts chapter 2. And it remains a very important church center for several hundred years in the history of the church. Up into the far, or right up above that, you might recognize that as Antioch. Antioch also has a very important place to play in church history, reaching back to the New Testament period. Antioch was originally the home base for the Apostle Paul. You might remember that. There in Acts chapter 13, Paul and Barnabas and the various elders and teachers in the church are praying and God sets apart Barnabas and Paul for their missionary journey to the Gentiles. It maintains a place of prominence for several hundred years in the history of the church. On the far left-hand side, stretching to the east, that's going to be Rome, right? Now Rome doesn't have a really huge important place in the first century necessarily. Although Paul ultimately is killed there, and probably Peter as well, and church history kind of claims that they've been buried there. Church history also has different things like Peter established the church there. Probably not true, all right? But Rome does play a growing, important place in the history of the church, especially in the West. Did I just say East a minute ago? That would be the West. Sorry. All right. I need to, like, write W on this hand and E on this hand, and just, like, I could maybe finally get that right. There you go. Well, coming back to the East, We have a little top right-hand corner. This is Constantinople. Now, right around Constantinople are other important towns as well. Nicaea is a very important town, obviously very close to Constantinople. Yeah, a very important town. You're going to hear the town of Nicomedia later on today, and probably some next week as well, because there's an important bishop in Nicomedia by the name of Eusebius, who is an Arian, and he really keeps the fires stoked for Arianism in the 4th century. Coming straight down to the bottom, we hear, and this is Alexandria. Alexandria is the place where Athanasius is the Bishop of Alexandria. Now, this doesn't mean that there are not other geographically important places in kind of the map or landscape there of the fourth century, but these are some of the most important ones, and you'll see some of them pop up again, like I said, today and next week. Any questions about that? Yes. Yes, yes, we do. We do still have letters that we're, in fact, we're not going to be reading about that. We're going to be reading some letters from Arius today, hopefully, and a letter from Athanasius, and there are letters from Constantine included in various places. You can find a lot of these on the internet. This particular book right here is a history of the church. by Sazamon, who's just an early church historian, and I brought his stuff today. So, yes, there are documents that we can read the letters of these individuals. Whether they are documents in their original form or not, probably not. Probably copies, you know, in that regard. Although, there may be some that are, like, in the original hand or something of different emperors, different leaders. Good question. Anything else? All right, well let's jump into theological history. This is where things get rather interesting. We're gonna start off talking about a theological ism known as Monarchianism. Monarchianism, all right? Monarchianism is the idea that God is the sole monarch of all creation. So we might think of it in terms of a creator-creature distinction. And this is shared fairly across the board in the early period. There's not a huge, big debate about this. Now, there are Gnostics, and they have their own views about creation and things like that. But within the realm of the church, Gnosticism is kind of identified early on there in the second century. Irenaeus writes a lot against the Gnostics. But there's a strong belief in the monarchy of God. He is the sole emperor or king of all that is. And it results in this very strong creator-creature distinction. Now, there are some challenges that rise up against monarchianism in the early church, especially in the second century, because there is a driving question. driving challenge. And the driving challenge is, what do we do with Jesus? All right? What do we do with Jesus? Now, I'm not saying that it was all up for grabs. Remember, we go back to our early study that we had maybe like a month or almost two months ago now, where we talked about the development of orthodoxy, and we talked about by what we called continuity, that there was a continuous stream of orthodoxy within the early church. And when people began to challenge that orthodox position, they were easily identifiable and could be addressed rather quickly and kind of dealt a blow that would show them as out of bounds, all right? But that doesn't mean there are no challengers. Just because there is a continuous flow of orthodoxy doesn't mean there are no people that oppose it. And there were people that opposed it. And one of these issues is regarding monarchianism. And the question came up, what do we do with Jesus? How does Jesus relate to God as the sole monarch of creation? Now, you might sit there and think, well, that's easy. Jesus and the Father are one. and they are one in essence, and they're three in person, and every word that comes out of your mouth at that moment is dependent upon third and fourth, fifth century clarifications in theological orthodoxy. When you say things like God is one in essence and three in person, you may not realize you are standing on the shoulders of councils and many that have gone before you with blood, sweat, and tears to kind of get us to that kind of language, that kind of clarity, all right? You might say, well, isn't it in the Bible? Well, yes, it's in the Bible. But remember the Jehovah's Witness guy that comes to your house? He's got a what? He's got a Bible, and you've got a Bible, and if all you're gonna do is stand at the door with a Jehovah's Witness guy and throw Bible verses back and forth, you're not gonna get where? You're not getting anywhere, all right? You're gonna have to bring some clarification to your understanding of the scripture, and that's gonna require extra biblical language sometimes to make that clear, hence creeds and confessions. Well, what do we do with Jesus? Well, in this realm of creator, creator, this hard realm, comes a couple of different views of monarchianism to kind of help answer the question, what do we do with Jesus? And one of them is known as modalistic, or Sebalianistic monarchianism. And now we've just added two more words to an already confusing word, and now we don't have any clarity at all, all right? Well, let's just take it slowly, all right? Take the middle word out. Modalistic Monarchianism. Modalistic Monarchianism holds the idea that God is the sole monarch of the universe and he manifests himself to us in different modes of being. One mode is the mode of the father. Or sometimes he comes to us in the mode of the son. Sometimes he comes to us in the mode of the spirit. This is modalistic monarchism. And before you get confused, that's heresy, all right? Just in case you were thinking I was going down the wrong trail. So modalistic monarchism says that God is a singular entity, is a singular being. He is one essence, all right? So far, so good in that regard. But he comes to us in different modes. That's called Sibelianistic monarchism because it ties back to an early third by the name of Sibelius, who was probably in Rome. And Sibelius taught this idea of modalism. Maybe you've heard it just called modalism. Modalism is not dead. Modalism still exists today. We find it in various movements. And the UPC Church, the United Pentecostal Church, teaches that God manifests himself to us as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. T.D. Jakes is a UPC modalist, right? Now, that's one way of addressing this issue, all right? So Jesus isn't like a distinct person within a triune Godhead. Jesus is just another manifestation of God, all right? So, to kind of give an easy kind of illustration of this, we often say that illustrations of the Trinity break down, right? Well, they break down into heresy. And they break down nicely for something like this, right? Whenever you say something like God is like water, you know, liquid and solid or gas, right? But it's never what? At least to the naked eye, it's never, I'm not a scientist, but it's never all three at one time, all right? So God is not like that. God is, in fact, all Father, Son, and Holy Spirit at the same time. He is one in essence and three in person, modalistic monarchism. Another option that they had was dynamic. or adoptionistic monarchianism. So sometimes this is called adoptionism, sometimes this is called dynamic monarchianism. What this teaches is that Jesus was just a man. He was just a man walking along the world doing his thing, We could say a good man, but he was just a man. And the father finds him and he pours his spirit out upon the man Jesus and adopts Jesus to be his son. Now, these things are without text. Understand that. When the Mormon comes to your door, he has text. He has Bible verses to quote-unquote support his position. So think with me for a moment about the baptism of Jesus. When Jesus comes up out of the water, the Holy Spirit descends upon him like the form of a dove, and the Father says, this is my beloved Son with whom I'm well pleased. Or sometimes you'll read text that'll say things like, today I have begotten thee. And adoptionists will take that and say, you see, Jesus was not the Son before he was anointed by the Holy Spirit. Before he was adopted by the Father, he wasn't the Son. Or as historic orthodoxy teaches, that Jesus has been the Son of God from all eternity. He is eternally begotten, right? Think of another text. Jesus is hanging on the cross, and when he's dying there, it says he gave up the ghost, or he gave up the spirit, all right? And like he gives it up and then dies. And they'll take that kind of text, and they'll say, see, the Holy Spirit can't die, so the Holy Spirit that came on Jesus and adopted him now has departed from him and left him there on the cross to die simply as a man. These are the kinds of ways they will use Bible verses to kind of prove their point, all right? These are two challenges to the idea of monarchianism. Nobody's necessarily here questioning that God is the sole monarch of the universe and there is this creator-creature distinction. That's not what's being challenged. What's being challenged is how do we relate Jesus to the Father? How do we make this work, all right? Well, answering monarchianism's challenges, Enter three really non-helpful guys. Enter a man by the name of Origen. Origen was, we often refer to him as a church father. And Origen has a lot of things that he taught that were very helpful. And in Origen's day, he was, we could say, trying to be helpful, and many found him helpful to kind of answer challenges like totalistic monarchianism or dynamic monarchianism. Origin teaches the idea that Jesus is divine, Jesus is eternal, so we're maintaining the creator creation. And Jesus, though, is subordinate to the father. So origin teaches a form of what is known historically as subordinationism. The son is not equal to the father. Origin influenced a man by the name of Lucian, another preacher, pastor of the day. And Lucian had the idea that, no, Jesus isn't on the line. Jesus is united with the Father in will. Now think about this for a moment. There are Bible verses, are there not, where Jesus comes along and says, I've come to do what? the will of the Father, or the will of my Father, all right? And Jesus is constantly doing the will of the Father over and over again. So there's this connection between Jesus and the Father in regard to will. And Lucian teaches the idea that Jesus is not divine, Jesus is not God, but Jesus is fully united with the Father in regard to will. There's a volitional connection between the two. There's not an essential connection. There's not an ontological connection. There's not a sharing, if you will, or being fully God. There is just this volitional type connection. Arius, who was an elder, a presbyter in Alexandria, Egypt, even further, Arius teaches that Jesus is, in fact, a creature, He is not just a mere creature like you or I. He is a creature. He's like the first of all the creatures. And then through Jesus, God makes everything else. But Jesus is fully creaturely. He is not divine. He is not eternal. Arius, the statement that usually is connected with Arius, Arius would say in regard to Jesus, there was a, was not. or we'll read here in a moment in a statement of faith that he has, he'll talk about Jesus coming to existence. In other words, he wasn't in existence before. Well, let's see if we can kind of chart this out a little bit. So here's Origen. We still have a line between creator and creature. Right? In this, Origen has done well. There is, Jesus is eternal. Jesus is God. Jesus is divine in that regard. So he is not a creature. Everything above the line is divine. Everything below the line is creation or creature. However, Origen distinguishes between the father and the son so much that the son is lesser than the father. in glory, lesser in power, right? Arius, skipping Lucian here, just going on to Arius here. Arius, you see what's happened? What's happened to Jesus? Jesus is now where? Jesus is below the line. The creator-creature distinction is still there, sort of, but Jesus is creature. He may not be a mere creature. He may be the greatest of all the creatures. He may be the creature through whom God made everything else, but he's still a what? He's still a creature, all right, in that regard. There are some key Arian doctrines. We could kind of sum this up. I've come across these in different places. I think Frank James, who taught at RTS for a while, summed these up real well once, and I probably grabbed these He said, number one, there is a real difference in the essence of the Father and the Son. They do not share, if you will. They are not both essentially God. There is a real difference in the essence, the being of the Father and the Son. Secondly, Christ is neither God nor man. He's something kind of in the middle. Arius wants to have some kind of reverence even for Jesus. Arius would find it appropriate to worship Jesus. See how that probably has some issues connected with it. He taught that Christ was a created being. He was a creature. Again, not a mere creature, but he was a creature. Nonetheless, I think what's interesting about this several years ago, you know Ligonier and Lifeway do the study thing that comes out every couple of years and a few years back they came out with there was a question about Is Jesus the greatest creation of God and Quote-unquote the evangelical group that was surveyed was like, I don't know 60 70 percent saying yes obviously, you know, maybe we could on the To be very favorable to that or to interpret that in the best light possible, we can just say they weren't paying attention. But surely there's just confusion on the issue of the very being of God, the being of Christ. Okay, let's pause for a minute there. Comments, questions, thoughts you have? Yeah, Tom? So I suppose, let me rephrase your question this way. Where is Arias getting these things from? Okay. Yeah, no, Arius, there certainly may be some that are holding different views like this that are coming out of Judaism. There are, quote unquote, Jewish Christian circles like the Ebionites and the Nazarenes that kind of come out in the late first, early second century. Arius, as far as I know, doesn't have any real connection with those. He's getting his views from Lucian and from Origen, taking them maybe to their logical conclusions. You know, if we have a subordinate son Where do we go with that? It's hard to maintain the idea that he's really divine, and then you wanna worship him. He's lesser, he's of a lesser glory, lesser power, lesser authority than the Father, but we wanna worship him. I mean, why would we do that? Why would we worship someone who's less than the most glorious of all beings? And so, as far as I know, Arius is taking his views from Lucian, from Origen, and from the Eastern, the Eastern Realm over there. I don't know of any actual Jewish connections in that regard. Yeah. Yeah, no, not that I know of. I think that's just his original name. Yeah. It's like a one-name wonder or whatever. Yes, Michelle. Yeah. Yes, well, surveys all have their weak points, don't they? And true. Yeah, if they'd made that kind of a distinction. Is the human nature of Jesus created? I think they would have messed that one up, too. Because then you would have felt guilty, you know, saying yes. And so, but, all right. All right, let's talk about this very, Very long, confusing word. Homo, homoousianisms. I've kind of made up a word here because they're kind of embedded in this. Homoousios. Homoousios. And we'll talk about these words just a little bit. Now, some of this is going to lay a little bit of some groundwork for next week when we talk about Nicaea. But we'll just look at these terms a little bit. These isms that are going around. There were different views that people had about Jesus, all right? Homoousians, the homoousians, right? Or the Greek term homoousios that is in the Nicene Creed. We say it every week. Know it because we don't read it in Greek every week, all right? But the homoousians taught that Jesus, was of the same essence, the son was of the same essence as the father. Michelle just highlighted the idea of the human nature of Christ. Speaking here of the divine nature of Christ. We're not saying that the human nature of Christ is of the same essence of the father. The father does not have a human nature. The father was not incarnate. but the divine nature of the son in relationship to the nature of the father in that sense, that they are of the same essence. They have the same essence. The homoousians, you notice the insertion of an iota, the little I there in the middle of the two Os, all right, that makes It's not the same essence as the father, but it's a similar essence. He's like the father. Similarly, he's divine, but it's not the same essence. It's a similar essence. Then there were two other groups, and they did not like the essence language, all right? They don't like the idea of talking about Jesus and his divine nature or the Father. They don't like essence language. And so they're just called the homoians. You can make up how you want to say that. That's kind of what I'm going to go with there. He's like the Father. He's not the same essence as the Father or a similar essence as the Father. It's not about essence. He's just like the Father. In what way is he like the Father? We don't know. We don't care. He's just like the father. That's enough for us. We're going to go with that. And then there's the onomoyens, and they just say, he's not like the father. How is he not like the father? I don't know. He's just not like the father. They didn't, they wanted to get away from the language of essence or being. All right. Now, the last two don't really become, if you will, big players in the fourth century. It's the homoousians and the homoiousians that have the discussions and have the debates. Is he the same essence or is he a similar essence? This was a major issue in the fourth century. People died over this issue. People were banished over this issue. One writer made the comment in this particular period that the entire world is coming apart over a diphthong. The diphthong, the two vowels that are stuck together, o-o or o-i, all right, in English anyway, o or oi. And you might sit there and think, well, does this even matter? Is this even a big deal? Obviously, we think it's a big deal, or we would be talking about it, but you might not fully understand or grasp how it's a major issue. I would say, at the moment, kind of file this word away, and we'll talk about this a little more next week, and we'll see the implications of this. The Homo oocaeans areas, the Aryans would have been just fine with that. He's similar, in essence, but he's not the same. Some high points. Let's trace this through. I think we have time. We'll see what happens. The Council of Nicaea, we're going to look at each one of these just a little bit. The Council of Nicaea in 325, the Senate of Antioch in 330, the readmission of Arius, that might catch you by surprise, the Senate of Jerusalem in 335, the Council of Alexandria in 362, Cappadocian Fathers, and the Council of Constantinople. Now, that's a lot to cover in just about 20 minutes or so, but let's see what we can do. and we're only gonna hit some high points on each one of these, the Council of Nicaea and the rejection of Arianism. Council of Nicaea is in 325. We mentioned earlier it was summoned or called by Constantine, summoned the bishops from all over the empire. Hundreds of bishops came. Hundreds of bishops did not come. That's important to keep in mind too. It's not that everybody showed up, but there is a definitive rejection of Arianism at the council. Now, This is the Nicene Creed. And you might sit there and think, oh, I can see this better in my bulletin. You can look at the one in your bulletin, but the one in your bulletin is not this, all right? We call it the Nicene Creed in the bulletin each week, but in truth, the creed that we make confession of each and every Lord's Day is the Nicene Constantinopolitan Creed. It is the Creed of Nicaea as filled out more fully in 381 at the Council of Constantinople. So let's just kind of read through this. 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, homoousios, of the essence of the Father, God of God, light of light, Excuse me, I'm sorry, I got ahead of the line there. Light of light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance, homoousion. The essence is probably just oosios for the essence. 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 of the Holy Ghost, period. What's the issue, or who is the person, if you will, who is the person of the Trinity that is at issue here? Can you tell? Jesus, all right, that's the discussion. We're not trying to decide if the Father is God. We're not trying to decide if the Father is fully divine. That's not on the table for a discussion. And the Holy Ghost or the Holy Spirit is also not part of the debate. Right? Now, there is more to be said about the Holy Spirit, and you'll notice later when we read the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed from 381, there's more said about the Holy Spirit. But at this particular point, the debate is focused in on the person of the Son. Now, they not only had a positive statement to make at the Council of Nicaea, they also had some anathemas, or some negative things to say. And at the end of it all, they added this piece. 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. Now these quotes that are around, these phrases, these are all phrases that were being made by the Arians. You can see what happens sometimes with a, remember nailing Jell-O to the wall? That's like dealing with a heretic. All right. They're kind of squishy. They move a lot. All right. And you get them on one thing. There was a time when he was not. Okay. Well, he was not before he was made. Let's say it that way. Wait a minute. He was not before he was made. That's just the same thing. You're just, you're just being silly. All right, so they would just kind of come out with different ways of saying the same kinds of heresy, all right, in the hopes of maybe getting some kind of acceptance. Because keep in mind, what they're really looking for, yes, they want the approval of the bishops, but what they really want is the approval of the emperor. because if they have the approval of the emperor, the emperor can put his pressure on the bishops and maybe get them to agree. So this is a negation. This is an anathema. This is taken off at 381. At 381, the Nicene Creed is reaffirmed. The anathema is dropped in that regard, right? And the creed itself is filled more full. Now, five years after the Council of Nicaea, now, it's hard not to get ahead of myself, but we'll talk more about this maybe next week. At the Council of Nicaea in 325, Arius is an elder. He is a presbyter from the church in Alexandria, Egypt. He comes to the Council of Nicaea. He cannot participate. The only ones that could participate at the councils were the bishops. And so the representative bishop representing the Arians in 325 at the Council of Nicaea is a man from Nicomedia known as Eusebius, Eusebius of Nicomedia, right? And a few years later at the Council of Antioch here in 330, There is a victory that is made for the Arians. The fellow on the left there is a man by the name of Eustathius, Eustathius. He is a bishop. He is accused of several things. He's accused first of immorality, of having fathered a child out of wedlock. That doesn't stick. There's no proof for that. He is eventually accused by the fellow on the right Eusebius of Nicomedia, of Sabellianism. Remember Sabellianism? We talked about that a moment ago. Sabellianism is a form of monarchianism, also known as what? Modalism, modalistic monarchianism, all right? Now, remember, it's an Antioch in 330. Remember our centers of power? Antioch's on the far eastern area above Jerusalem, all right? It's not the most major player, but it is an important place. Now, Eusebius, though, is from Nicomedia, which is up further to the west. near Constantinople. Remember, he was there at Nicaea in 325. He's traveling through kind of modern-day Turkey and then down through like Syria, comes into Antioch. He's traveling. While he's traveling, he stops in the church there in Antioch, and they're going to have a meeting, and they're going to make sure that they're on the same page about things. Well, Eustathius has a strike against him. Eustathius is a good friend of Athanasius. Now by this time, Athanasius is the Bishop of Alexandria. You might recall I mentioned earlier that in 325, Alexander was the Bishop of Alexandria and he was at Nicaea. He was the bishop, he was the one participating. Athanasius was there, but Athanasius at that particular time was a deacon in the church in Alexandria. So if Arius as an elder in the church in Alexandria couldn't speak, Athanasius as a deacon, he couldn't participate either, all right? But he was there. And in 328, just a few years later, Alexander, the Bishop of Alexandria, has died and Athanasius has been made the Bishop of Alexandria. He forms a relationship with Eustatius. Now, this is great for Eustatius and for Athanasius, but when Eusebius of Nicomedia comes through town, He finds out that Eustacius is a good friend of Athanasius. Athanasius is the one that's against Eusebius of Nicomedia, and hence, Eusebius of Nicomedia wants to expose Eustacius and wants to get him out of his bishopric. So he exposes him as a Sabellian. Now, he's not a Sabellian. Athanasius never writes about him being a civilian. If he was, Athanasius would not have linked arms with the man. Another preacher from up in the area near, closer to Nicomedia is a man by the name of Chrysostom, who also does not expose Eustacius as a civilian. So most likely, this is a trumped-up charge that Eusebius of Nicomedia brings against Eustacius just to strengthen the Arian position. Now, this is going to begin to open up opportunities for Arius. Arius wants to come home. And you can imagine he wants to come home. Why? Because he's been kind of rendered outlaw. He's been kind of pushed out of the church. So, in order to get back in, he has his friend, Eusebius of Nicomedia, petition Constantine. Constantine wants to let Arius back in. Now, you're an emperor. Why would you want Arius and his followers back in? What do you think? I'm sorry? Political unity. Jerome makes the comment later in the fourth century that at one point, Arianism was so far spread, even though Nicaea was still on the books, Arianism is so far spread that he says the whole world has become Arian. You've probably heard the phrase before, Athanasius contra mundum, Athanasius against the world. The story of Athanasius is fascinating. And he goes through like five different periods of exile while he is the Bishop of Alexandria. And he comes back into his position, he's pastoring, shepherding, preaching, and a few years later, you know, the emperor dies and another emperor comes to power, or the area churches convene a council, and he's banished again. And, well, at this particular point, Eusebius of Nicomedia petitions Constantine to let Arius back in. So there is a Senate, the Senate of Jerusalem. It's called in 335. During this particular time, this is during one of Athanasius' five banishments. He's under house arrest at this particular point. So therefore, he can't come, he can't participate, he can't argue. against this. The Senate is held on 335, the Senate of Jerusalem, at which time several things happen. The Arian bishops appeal to Constantia. Constantia is the sister of Constantine and she is about to die. Arius appeals to her, and she appeals to Constantine. Arius draws up a personal statement of faith. Let me just read part of this statement of faith that he gives. He says, we believe in one God, the Father Almighty. So far, so good. And in his son, the Lord Jesus Christ, who proceeded from him before all ages. Hmm. I wonder what he means by that. Remember, Arius doesn't have a problem with the idea that Jesus came about before the world came. Jesus is older than the world, he's just not as old as God. Being God the word by whom all things were made. whether things in heaven or things on earth. He took upon him flesh and suffered and rose again and ascended into heaven whence he will again come to judge the quick and the dead. We believe in the Holy Ghost and the resurrection of the body and the life to come and the kingdom of heaven and in one Catholic Church of God established throughout the earth. We have received this faith from the Holy Gospels in which the Lord says to his disciples, go forth and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost. If we do not believe these truths and if we do not truly receive the doctrines concerning the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost, as they are taught by the whole Catholic Church and by the sacred scriptures, let God be our judge, both in this life and in that which is to come. And then he says, we appeal to your piety. He's appealing to Constantine here. He's writing this to Constantine that he might be let back in the church. But you notice what he does. He avoids, he avoids Nicene language. He avoids any language regarding the ousia, the essence of the sun. There's no affirmation of homoousias. There's no note of homoousias. He just avoids the language altogether. Athanasius writes of him later writing of the death of Arius. Let me just read this little part here. Arius, the author of the heresy and associate of Eusebius, having been summoned before the most blessed Constantine Augustus, at the solicitation of the partisans of Eusebius, was desired to give in writing an exposition of his faith, he drew up this document with great artfulness, and like the devil, concealed his impious assertions beneath the simple words of Scripture." A synod in Jerusalem here in 335 approves Arius. but we still need the stamp of the emperor, okay? So Arius leaves the Senate in 335, goes down to Egypt. This is where Alexandria is. This is where Athanasius would be, but again, Athanasius is under house arrest. He finds that he is unwelcome in Egypt, which is probably a little surprising to him because back in the 20s, In the early 30s, he had been quite popular among many people in Egypt, but he is unwelcome. He departs and goes to Constantinople. A council is to be held in Constantinople a year later in 336. Now, it's to be held. Eusebius of Nicomedia, writes several things against Alexander, who is the bishop of Constantinople. These towns are just a few miles apart. Before the council can be held in 336, before the council can be held, Arius dies. Now You ever have those things that you wonder, do you share this or not? And your wife's not in here to help you. No. So I'll go ahead. You can tell her later. I learned this in the last day or so. And I thought, wow, it's fascinating that Athanasius even writes about it, all right? I will try to give it with as little commentary as possible. This is the death of Arius. I never knew how he died. He died in 336, right? Right before the council was to be held. Athanasius says, a little before sunset, Arius was compelled by want of nature to enter the place appropriated for such emergencies. The kids are all in Sunday school, right? So we can talk about this. It's just common stuff that happens. Well, he goes on. And here, that is, while he was in the place for such emergencies, he lost his restoration, his communion, and his life. The most blessed Constantine was amazed when Lye heard of this occurrence and regarded it as the punishment of perjury. He had already tried to sell himself to Constantine as being orthodox. Again, avoiding all the conciliar language of just a few years prior. Constantine took his death, and especially his death in this way, as a punishment for his lying under oath. It then became evident to everyone that the menaces of Eusebius were absolutely futile, that is, Eusebius of Nicomedia, and that the expectations of Arius were vain and foolish. It also became manifest that the Arian heresy had met with condemnation from the Savior, as well as from the pristine church. It is not then astonishing or is it not then astonishing that some are still found who seek to exculpate him whom the Lord has condemned and to defend a heresy of which the author was not permitted by our Lord to be rejoined to the church? We have been duly informed that this was the mode of the death of Arius. It is said that for a long period subsequently no one would make use of the seat on which he died. This is how this guy died. Now It was just shocking to me. Those who were compelled by necessities of nature to visit the public place, I'm just reading, I didn't write this, always avoided with horror the precise spot on which the impiety of Arius had been visited with judgment. And then at a later epoch, a certain rich and powerful man who had embraced the Arian tenants bought the place of the public and built a house on the spot in order that the occurrence might fall into oblivion and that there might be no perpetual memory of the death of Arius. I think that's an interesting way he died. What a shocking memory that must have been to the church. And it was striking enough that Athanasius would actually write about where he dies and how he dies. The Council of Alexandria in 362, moving forward, all right? Now this is jumping about 30 years plus, all right? Remember we talked about the homoousians and the homoiousians? that he is of the same substance, homoousios, or a similar substance, homoousios. In 362 at the Council of Alexandria, the homoousions, for the most part, joined with the homoousions, agreeing with Nicene Christology. Some of the homoousions in the way of the Arian party, but the majority of them came in. Now, this is helpful because this is before Athanasius dies. Athanasius does die before the Council of Constantinople in 381, but he was still alive here at this particular point. Now, there are some who help come up with language that really helps fuel the clarity at the Council of Chalcedon, and they are known as the Cappadocian Fathers. Here they are. No, that's not them. Sorry. You had to look fast. OK. So these are the Cabot Ocean Fathers. Yeah, you're one of them. There you go. Just in case you weren't watching. OK. Basil the Great, Gregory, you gotta wake people up. You know, an hour into the lecture, you gotta wake everybody up. Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus. Sometimes, we mentioned earlier, Chrysostom, the golden tongue or the golden mouth preacher, as he's sometimes called. Sometimes he's included with the Cappadocians, but these are the three primary men. Now, just in brief, this is the language they help with, all right? God is one in Ussia, and three in hupostasis. We might translate this for us as he is one in essence and three in person, right? There's a whole lot more that could be said there, but this is the language that we are thankful for these brothers in helping with, right? One in essence and three in person. The Council of Constantinople, which is the solidification of the Nicene position, and we could add that phrase also with the Council of Ephesus and the Council of Chalcedon in 431 and 451, I think, respectively. We'll talk about those next time. But notice the language here, the Council of Constantinople, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds. Light of light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things are made, who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost 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." And notice the period from the original Nicene Creed would have been right there, right? 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. And that's the confession basically that we use each and every Lord's Day. All right, we have two minutes. Questions. Really fast tour through the fourth century. Questions or comments? Yes, Jeremy. Say that one more time a little louder. Yes, yes, that's a great point. Arias was, he was quite the little poet and musician, and he would come up with these little kind of musical ditties, you know, so imagine there was a time when he was not. There was a time when he was not. I'm sorry. I'm just, that was free, and so. Yeah. But he did. Had all these little ditties. And we think of catechisms and how people will put catechisms to music, the questions and answers. And he was a master at that. And the people loved that. They really, this is why it was so surprising that he was rejected there, what, around 335 when he goes down from Jerusalem to Egypt. And they're unwelcoming because he was very popular as a preacher in the 20s and maybe teens and 20s and maybe early 30s. So, yeah, it's a good question. Michael? Is it going to be as good as Jeremy's? Is it going to make me sing again? That'd be fun. Yeah. Right. Absolutely. It was like murder. Yeah, it's like pulling teeth and more, because this is, you know, you would think 325, you know, we have these kind of glossy, glorious thoughts about church history. Oh, 325, everybody agreed, and they ran out of there. It was all happy. No. I mean, some agreed with their arm being kind of probably twisted behind their back, because they knew Constantine wanted them to agree in that regard. He wants a unified empire, all right? I mean, what politician doesn't? And so yeah, there are probably a thousand or more bishops. I've seen some numbers. There were many bishops in the fourth century, in the early period. I think like 300 or so came. Constantine paid their travel. He secured their safety. He put them up when they got there. But I'm sure travel still would have been very hard. Some bishops may have been too old to travel and that kind of a thing, or just weren't interested, didn't think it was a big deal, that kind of a thing, they stayed away. But Athanasius fought for the next 40 years for Nicene Christianity. And like I mentioned, he is, when I teach this class at school, we go from this particular point into several lectures on Athanasius. And if you ever want to read some great stuff from the fourth century, read Athanasius. His work, Contra Gentis, which is kind of like part one, part two is on the incarnation. And then I think a companion piece that goes really well with those is his book on the life of Antony. Antony was a hermit that lived out in the wilderness there. But it's interesting the way he tells the story of Antony. I think he kind of tells it almost like through his eyes. And Antony becomes like a hero for him. And he almost like lives his life through the telling of Antony's story. And so yeah, there were lots of bishops. And many were Arian. hardcore Aryan, and it took years to really work through that. And Aryanism is often called the arch-heresy because it just seems to be present all the time. It's not dead. I mean, it's still here. It ripped through the churches in England in the 17th and 18th centuries, led to Socinianism and Unitarianism in the churches in England and on the continent. And it's still with us today. I mean, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witness, you know, all these very unbiblical, heretical Christologies. And so, all right, let's, oh, Anthony, real quick. Are you thinking like in the fourth century? Hmm. Jesus was a man, he was, yeah. I wouldn't doubt that there's some intersection and some cross-feeding there, but I'm not aware of anything directly, so. All right, well, let's pray. We need to go, and Father, we thank you so for the time we've had talking about the glories of the Lord Jesus Christ, and we thank you that, indeed, You, Father, Son, Holy Spirit, are one glorious triune God, Trinity in unity. And Father, we ask that you would this day, for the glory of your name, that you would help us as we come together to worship as a body today to make much of you, to make much of the work of your son and his incarnation, to make much of his life, his death, his resurrection. May we worship you this day and bring you honor and glory. Thank you for the time we've had. We ask your blessing upon us in Christ's name. Amen.