22 May 359 AD: Council (s) of Sirmium

22 May 359 A.D.  Councils (s) of Sirmium

The Council of Sirmium generally refers to the third of the four episcopal councils held in Sirmium between 357 AD and 359 AD. Specifically one was held in 357, one in 358 and one in 359. The third council marked a temporary compromise between Arianism and the Western bishops of the Christian church. At least two of the other councils also dealt primarily with the Arian controversy. All of these councils were held under the rule of Constantius II, who was sympathetic to the Arians.

Contents 

• 1 Background
• 2 The First and Second Councils of Sirmium
• 3 Third and Fourth Councils
• 4 Triumph of the Nicene Creed
• 5 Recent Theory
• 6 References
• 7 External links

Background

Arianism was first put forward early in the 4th century by the Alexandrian presbyter Arius. It held that the Father is uniquely self-existent and immutable: consequently, Christ could not be God. The opponents of Arianism led by Athanasius of Alexandria claimed that the doctrine reduced Jesus to a demigod thus restoring polytheism as Jesus would still be worshipped. Further, it appeared to undermine the concept of redemption as only one who was truly God could reconcile man and God.

The First Council of Nicaea in 325 appeared to have settled the issue with Arius and his theology condemned and the Nicene Creed issued stating the Son was "of one substance with the father" (homoousion to Patri). However, Arians made a sustained effort to return to the church and to restore their beliefs after 325 with a prolonged theological dispute ensuing.

The First and Second Councils of Sirmium

Constantine the Great died in 337, leaving Constantius II, who favored Arianism, as emperor in the East and Constans, who favored Nicea, emperor in the West. A church council held at Antioch in 341 issued an affirmation of faith that excluded the homoousion clause; another council held at Sardica in 342 (now Sofia) achieved little.

Constantius, who had a residence in Sirmium, convened the first Council of Sirmium in 347. It opposed Photinus, the bishop of Sirmium, an anti-Arian who held a belief similar to Marcellus.

In 350, Constantius became the sole Emperor of both East and West, leading to a temporary strengthening of Arianism.

At the second Council of Sirmium in 351, Basil, bishop of Ancyra (now Ankara) and leader of the semi-Arians, had Photinus deposed. The semi-Arians held that the Son was "of similar substance" (homoiousios) to the Father. Sirmium II also drafted the Sixth Arian Confession, which was an expanded version of the Fourth Arian Confession and was consistent with the strength of the semi-Arians.

Third and Fourth Councils

Councils were held in Arles in 353 and Milan in 355, with Athanasius condemned at both. In 356, Athanasius began his third exile, and George was appointed bishop of Alexandria.

The third Council of Sirmium, in 357, was the high point of Arianism. The Seventh Arian Confession (Second Sirmium Confession) held that both homoousios (of one substance) and homoiousios (of similar substance) were unbiblical and that the Father is greater than the Son. (This confession was later known as the Blasphemy of Sirmium)

A Council of Ancyra in 358, chaired by Basil, released a statement using the term homoousios. But the fourth Council of Sirmium, also in 358, proposed a vague compromise: it said simply that the Son was homoios ("like") the Father.

Triumph of the Nicene Creed

At two councils in 359 (Rimini in the West and Seleucia in the East), Constantius tried to impose Sirmium IV's homoios formula on the church.

A council in Constantinople in 361 also approved homoios ("like" the Father), stating that the Son was "like the Father who begot him," and rejected the use of ousia ("substance").

But at the death of Constantius in 361, the Nicene party in the West, which affirmed homoousios ("of the same substance"), consolidated its position. And in the East, at the death of Athanasius in 373, the Cappadocian Fathers (Basil of Caesarea, died 379; his brother Gregory of Nyssa, died 394; and Gregory Nazianzus, died 390), took the lead in support of Nicene orthodoxy.

Theodosius I (emperor of the East, 379-395; sole emperor, 394-395) outlawed Arianism at his accession in 379.

Finally, in 381, the First Council of Constantinople—the second ecumenical (worldwide) council, after the first (Nicaea) in 325—upheld the Nicene Creed.

Recent Theory

T.D. Barnes suggests that the only extant reference to the "first Council of Sirmium" is in fact a wrongly-dated reference to the Council of Sirmium in 351. He then posits that the councils of 357 and 358 consisted of only a handful of participants and were not really councils. After examining the primary documents he concludes: "In sum, the only formal and well-attested Council of Sirmium during the reign of Constantius is the council of 351 which condemned Athanasius, Marcellus, and Photinus and promulgated the creed which was subsequently presented to the Councils of Arles and Milan."^[1]

References

1. Jump up ^ Athanasius and Constantius: Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993], pp. 231-32)

External links

• Catholic Encyclopedia article on Arianism
• Chronology of the Arian controversy
• Chronological life of St. Athanasius
• Catholic Encyclopedia article on Semi-Arianism
• Second Sirmium Confession

Steven Colbert & Mr. (Dr.Prof.) Bart Ehrman

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,The Colbert Report on Facebook,Video Archive

25 Feb 484: Huneric, Arians, Anglicans, Articles & Nicene Creed

25 February 484. Vandal King, Huneric, rules in favor of Arianism. Mr. (Dr.) Rusten tells the story with a few of our musings throughout.

Rusten, E. Michael and Rusten, Sharon. The One Year Christian History. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2003. http://www.amazon.com/The-Year-Christian-History-Books/dp/0842355073/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1393302630&sr=8-1&keywords=rusten+church+history

The backstory.

In the early 4th century, the Alexandrian Arius, advocated his views that denied the eternality of the Word, Jesus Christ. There was a time when Jesus ούχ ήν, or, “was not.” (For the Greek-students, we could not get the punctuation correct in this forum, ήν.) The Nicene Council met and ruled in 325 A.D. The Nicene Creed has been confessed as Scripturally warranted in both the East and West since then.

Constantine the Great called the Council. He held up the Scriptures and said, “Let all things be settled by this Book.” The East and the West has, since 325 A.D., upheld the Nicene Creed.

This historic Anglican faith has retained this 4th century Confession and Creed since then, notably, in the service for Holy Communion. The Nicene Creed was reaffirmed by Article VIII of the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, 1571 A.D. It is notable that the Anglican Article uses Scripture to justify reception of the Creed and not the reverse, to wit, because the Church said-so.


It still boggles the mind to think of this being "confessed" weekly in Holy Communion (like many orthodox hymns being sung). Yet, it happens throughout the US, UK and Canada.

But, in the 4th and 5th centuries there were some Germanic tribes that embraced “Arianism” and rejected the Nicene Creed.

In 429 A.D., King Gaiseric, a king of Vandals, led 80,000 troops out of Spain and conquered portions of northern Africa. In suing for peace, the Roman Empire ceded land by treaty. In 433, Gaiseric took Carthage. In 455, he sacked Rome, primarily—as is usual (like the later Islamic quests)—driven by greed, covetousness, tax-tributes and personal glory.

Gaiseric’s son, Huneric, took power after his father’s death in 477. He fleeted up. Huneric, the son and new king, was an Arian. He used his power to force Nicene bishops to adopt Arianism.

He ordered a debate on 1 Feb 483 A.D. to settle the issue and show the superior merits of Arianism. According to Rusten’s telling, 100s of bishops from both sides appeared (112). We think this number rather large and Mr. (Dr.) Rusten provides no sources. The Arian bishops issued technicalities that forestalled debate.

Apparently, there was an uproar (somewhere, but Rusten doesn’t tell us). Huneric declared that “Catholic bishops were taking it upon themselves, with consummate foolishness, to throw everything into confusion with seditious shouting, with the intention of bringing it about that the debate did not take place” (112). Huneric cancelled the debate.

Huneric decreed that non-Arian (= Nicene-based) worship cease, non-Arian churches be turned over to Arian bishops, and that all non-Arian bishops convert to Arianism by 1 Jun 484.

According to Rusten’s telling, 100s of Nicene-confessing bishops refused, lost their properties and suffered other cruelties including crimes against persons—assaults and more. Suffering does beef up the courage, but we editorialize.

Huneric died in Dec 484 A.D. His successors did not perpetuate the persecutions. In 533, the Vandals were defeated and Carthage was returned to the Roman Empire.

A few exploratory questions:

• What of Jehovah’s Witnesses? How would you answer them?

• What of the varied Trinitarian heresies amongst some Pentecostalists? T.D. Jakes? What sayest thou Mark Driscoll? What of Benny Hinn's claim of 9 Persons in the Trinity?

• What of the “Assemblies of God” who took a vote in 1914, yeah or nay, as to whether to adopt Trinitarian theology or not? Americans re-inventing the wheel by a vote?

• What of 19th-21st century theological liberals?

• What view does Ms. Shori (Bp. in TEC) endorse?

• What of reaffirmation of Article VIII of the Thirty-nine Articles? Did the Americans in 1789 remove the Athanasian Creed? Or, was it reaffirmed, by default, in the modified Articles of 1801? Is someone "accursed" who denies Nicene Christology?

• What of modern worship, very often, that knows nothing of the Nicene Creed? Modern evangelicals, what say you of the omission of this Creed from your divine services? Rick Warren, what sayest thou? Are there sociological studies that give stats on adults able to confess this Creed? I've seen a few on the 10 commandments and they aren't very encouraging.

• What say you of these things? How would you build a case for the Nicene Creed?

Colossians 1.15-17:

1599 Geneva Bible (GNV)
15 [a]Who is the image of the invisible God, [b]the first begotten of every creature.
16 For by him were all things created which are in heaven, and which are in earth, things visible and invisible: whether they be [c]Thrones, or Dominions, or Principalities, or Powers, all things were created by him, and for him.
17 And he is before all things, and in him all things consist.

Footnotes:

a. Colossians 1:15 A lively description of the person of Christ, whereby we understand that in him only, God showeth himself to be seen: who was begotten of the Father before anything was made, that is, from everlasting, by whom also all things that are made, were made without any exception, by whom also they do consist, and whose glory they serve.
b. Colossians 1:15 Begotten before anything was made: and therefore the everlasting Son of the everlasting Father.
c. Colossians 1:16 He setteth forth the Angels with glorious names, that by the comparison of most excellent spirits we may understand how far passing the excellence of Christ, in whom only we have to content ourselves, and let go all Angels.

The Nicene Creed, including the very warrantable double procession is as followings:

I 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; 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.
Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.
And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.
And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen

(Photos) Christology, Nicene Churchmanship & Solomon's Temple

Efforts to understand Solomon's Temple, e.g. 2 Chronicles 1-8.  This only goes to magnify the assertion by Jesus that "One greater than the Temple is here..."  This issue goes to the heart of larger issues:  orthodox and Biblical Christology, Nicene and Creedal Churchmanship, and theological liberalism such as the inchoate and unbelieving leaders in the Episcopal Church.  It may also go to some perceived inchorence in anti-propositionalism and mysticism afoot in some growing movements. (The pictures are fuzzy, but still suggestive.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nicene Creed as "Complete Fairy Tale?"

Following a study of Jeremiah recently, we've begun to think about the subject of theological "defamation, deceit, distortion, distraction and dismissal."  Such mental (epistemological), moral (ethics), aesthetic (affections) and volitional (choices) cut across all socio-economic, socio-political and religious classes in Jeremiah's time.  Corrupt doctrine, thinking, teachers, and people--disabled and utterly disoriented and deceived is a theme in Jeremiah.  Here's Byran Owen's post in behalf and in favour of the Nicene Creed, the historic Anglican perspective.  Of course, many (majority?) of self-identifying Christians would know few of these things, although the implications are substantial, significant and important.  Nicene Churchmanship prevailed in the East, Western Romanism, and classical Protestant faiths--Anabaptistic, Pentecostalist and other tub-thumping revivalists excluded. (Bryan is a TEC Rector in Jackson, MS.)

http://creedalchristian.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-truth-about-council-of-nicaea.html

The Truth about the Council of Nicaea

According to pop culture accounts, the Council of Nicaea (325 AD) made up a new version of Christianity that includes the divinity of Jesus and the doctrine of the Trinity. And the Council also gave orthodox bishops absolute political power to stamp out rival, more tolerant followers of Jesus. The subtext, of course, is that orthodox Christianity is bad if not evil. And its core doctrine is false because it was the byproduct of efforts to consolidate political power and control.

According to the following video, this view of the Council of Nicaea is "a complete fairy tale" grounded in a lack of historical evidence. The video is a good antidote to some of the anti-Christian, "let's make up our own religion" hype out there, so watch it all:

Sproul-Saleeb Dialogue: What Must a Muslim Do to be Saved?

http://www.ligonier.org/rym/broadcasts/audio/necessity-grace/

The Necessity of Grace

What must a Muslim do to be saved? Dr. Sproul and Abdul Saleeb discuss the Islamic understanding of achieving eternal life.

Jesus Christ in the OT: the Truer and Better One

Treading Grain brings this video at: http://treadinggrain.com/2012/jesus-in-the-old-testament/