Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing? -- Opening Statement

Why does something exist rather than nothing? There are two categories of things which exist: those which exist necessarily (those things which don't depend on a certain set of circumstances to exist, but rather must exist) and those which exist contingently (those things which don't have to exist, and must have been caused by something outside of them). In this debate, we will be focusing on why the universe exists instead of not existing. It must have an explanation for itself-- either it necessarily exists, or something else caused it.

A way of reasoning through the question of the universe's explanation is a form of the Leibnizian cosmological argument from contingency:
"1) Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause. 2) If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God. 3) The universe exists. 4) Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence. (from 1, 3) 5) Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God. (from 2, 4)"

This argument points out that everything has an explanation for its existence, either in its necessity or in being caused. As a result, something which is contingent requires that it is grounded by something which is necessary. If the universe is contingent it requires a necessary cause. According to Leibniz, this necessary cause could only be God.

The other alternative is that the universe is necessary. However, big bang cosmology has shown us that the universe began to exist at a finite point in time, which suggests that it could have not come into existence at all. In other words, it does not have to exist. Furthermore, if the universe is said to be necessary, what could this mean? Does it mean that every single quark which composes all of the matter in the universe is necessary? There could be no more or less? This seems absurd.

It is obvious that since the universe began to exist and could have not come into existence at all, it is contingent. All contingent things require a cause, and must ultimately go back to a necessary cause-- something which must exist because of its nature. Otherwise, things would simply pop into existence out of nothing without a cause. As the kalam cosmological argument puts it:
A. Anything which begins to exist has a cause.
B. The universe began to exist.
Thus, the universe has a cause.

While some atheists may counter Leibniz's assertion that the only explanation for the universe would be God by saying that this universe may have simply emerged out of another, this doesn't solve their problem. If what caused the universe is also material and thus contingent, then THAT would necessarily require a transcendent cause, or else the atheist is faced with having an infinite regress. As philosopher William Lane Craig argued, paraphrasing Liebniz in his book Reasonable Faith:
"imagine that a series of geometry books has been copied from eternity; such an infinite regress would still not explain why such books exist at all. But the same is true with regard to past states of the world: even should these be infinite; we have yet to discover a sufficient reason for the existence of an eternal universe. Therefore, the reason for the universe's existence must be found outside the universe, in a being whose sufficient reason is self-contained; it is its own sufficient reason for existing and is the reason the universe exists as well. This Sufficient Reason of all things is God, whose own existence is to be explained only by reference to Himself. That is to say, God is a metaphysically necessary being."

Since the universe consists of all space, time, and matter, that which caused it must be spaceless, timeless, and immaterial. This cause must also have a will capable of bringing the universe into existence, for although abstract things like numbers are spaceless, timeless, and immaterial, they stand in no causal relation to anything else and have no wills by which to bring anything about, let alone a complex, highly organized universe governed by strict laws and capable of producing highly developed life.

The only alternative for the atheist is to assert that the universe exists with NO explanation at all. For obvious reasons, he/she will not want to admit this. To do so is to make a mockery of logic and the obvious truth that everything which exists requires an explanation for its existence. After all, we do not genuinely worry that a giant sperm whale might simply appear in the earth’s atmosphere and land on our house (infinite improbability drive aside).

When asking why something exists rather than nothing, it's also important that we ask what kind of thing this "something" is. I have demonstrated that in the case of the universe, it is contingent and came into existence at a finite point in time, and so the explanation for it must then be God. However, I could go a step further and point to the obvious marks of design and fine-tuning in this universe, which further demonstrates that there must be a mind behind it. While I cannot claim any expertise in physics, I will take Stephen Hawking at his word when he says:
"The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life" (A Brief History of Time, p. 125).

Many physicists, prominent atheists among them, have thus reached the conclusion that the universe has the appearance of "fine-tuning" which makes it possible for life to be able to exist at inconceivable odds. However, many of these prominent atheists, like Hawking, have theorized a vast multiplicity of universes, most of them incapable of life, in order to better the odds that our universe could unintentionally produce life. As the lottery slogan goes, “somebody's gotta win! Might as well be you!” While the multiverse model has some mathematical support, it has, as Hawking's colleague Roger Penrose said on the Unbelievable Radio Program, "absolutely no support from observation," and is thus not really a scientific (if science is taken to only be based on empirical data) but a metaphysical construct.

Similarly, Dawkins admits in his book The God Delusion that, "one of the greatest challenges to the human intellect... has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises," and that, "the natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself" (p. 188 paperback edition). These atheistic scientists provide further corroboration for the premise that the “something” which exists exhibits hallmarks of design, and thus strengthens the argument that it was caused by an immaterial, timeless, causeless, spaceless intelligence.

So why does something exist rather than nothing? God exists because He must. He can’t do otherwise. The universe, which began to exist, exists because it was caused, and the only good candidate for the cause of the universe is God.

The opening statement of Ben, my opponent, can be found here:

http://foolofpsalms.blogspot.com/2011/01/blog-wars-round-1.html

Ben's rebuttal to my opening statement can be found here:

http://foolofpsalms.blogspot.com/2011/01/blog-wars-round-2-rebuttal.html

Debate to Take Place January 24th-- Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?

WHY IS THERE SOMETHING RATHER THAN NOTHING?

An atheist/Christian debate by Ben Doublett and Cody Cook taking place on

http://foolofpsalms.blogspot.com/ and http://arguewithachristian.blogspot.com/

beginning January 24th at 11 p.m. EST

The rules:

Both debaters will post on their respective blogs an opening statement making a positive case for their viewpoint not exceeding 1,200 words.

Within 72 hours, both debaters will post rebuttals not exceeding 1,600 words.

Within another 72 hours, both debaters will post a three question cross-examination they have done of the other debater, questions not exceeding 50 words and answers not exceeding 200 words.

Within another 72 hours, 400 word conclusions will also be posted by each debater.

Links to the post responded to and the response posted (when they are submitted) will be placed in text of each post.


The debaters:

Ben Doublett is the owner of a small business and a British citizen living in the United States. He spends his free time volunteering with the business program at Mason High School, mentoring aspiring entrepreneurs and, most relevantly, as an amateur atheist and rationalist polemic.

In his new blog, Fool of Psalms, he criticizes all kinds of irrational belief, including alternative and faith-based healing practices and (coming soon) astrology, but mainly he focuses on dispelling the reasons given for religious belief and providing reasons for disbelief. This blog has attracted nearly a thousand unique visitors from all over the world in less than three weeks.

While he is definitely not reserved in his criticisms of beliefs he considers irrational, Doublett always tries to remain as respectful as possible in debates with the faithful. He is a strong advocate of the notion that one should attack the belief and not the believer.

To read more about Doublett’s positions on religious faith and other issues, check out his blog at http://foolofpsalms.blogspot.com/



Cody Cook is a theology student specializing in apologetics. He seeks to follow the biblical command to, "sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence" and seeks to dialogue with non-Christians about the truths of the Christian faith. He believes that since reason and morality come from God, they cannot be consistently used against Him by the atheist/agnostic/skeptic. As a result, he seeks to demonstrate circular reasoning, unfounded assumptions, and faulty reasoning in atheistic thinking, while at the same time seeking to maintain a friendly and generous spirit. He has two blogs which he uses to encourage dialogue with fellow Christians as well as non-Christians: http://arguewithachristian.blogspot.com/ andhttp://codysblackbox.blogspot.com/

Hawking Says Philosophy Is Dead, Science Can Answer All the Major Questions

Thanks to Glenn Peoples and Adam Santibanez for directing me to this info! What I've written below is based on reviews of Hawking's new book, which I haven't yet read, so please let me know if I've misunderstood him (or rather, if the reviewers and I have misunderstood him):

Stephen Hawking (and/or his co-author) writes on page 5 of his new book, in which he claims to have disproved God, that: "Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge."

I wonder when philosophy died. Maybe it died right after atheist scientists like Hawking and Dawkins determined that philosophical naturalism should be the presuppositional underpinning of all science. Or maybe it was merely dying, and actually bought the farm pages later after Hawking had quoted his share of philosophers and gave his support to an epistemological view called model-dependent realism. In any case, it's dead now so let's stop asking questions about meaning, truth, beauty, and knowledge and just let Hawking tell us what the truth is, or rather, what the truth is "for him" since model-dependent realism suggests that:

"there is no one model, but in fact a lot of different ways in which one could predict the same situation; and if two different theories are able to forecast same events, none of them could be called wrong. Anyone who feels more convenient with a specific theory is free to use it and no one has the right to question their choice" (http://topnews.us/content/225376-stephen-hawking-introduces-model-dependent-realism-world).

In any case, God is absolutely NOT necessary to explain the universe... at least for him.

‎"The professional philosopher can only roll his eyes at the effrontery and condescension of such a statement. Two scientists who have, to all appearances, little acquaintance with philosophy are prepared to pronounce an entire discipline dead and to insult their own faculty colleagues in philosophy at Cal Tech and Cambridge University, many of whom, like Michael Redhead and D. H. Mellor, are eminent philosophers of science, for supposedly failing to keep up. I couldn’t help but wonder what evidence our intrepid authors have of Mr. Redhead’s laggard scholarship? What recent works in philosophy have they read that form the basis for their verdict? Alas, they do not say.

"The professional philosopher will regard their verdict as not merely condescending but also as outrageously naïve. The man who claims to have no need of philosophy is the one most apt to be fooled by it. One might therefore anticipate that Mlodinow and Hawking’s subsequent exposition of their favored theories will be underpinned by a host of unexamined philosophical presuppositions. That expectation is, in fact, borne out. Like their claims about the origin of the universe from “nothing” or about the Many Worlds Hypothesis to explain fine tuning, their claims about laws of nature, the possibility of miracles, scientific determinism, and the illusion of free will are asserted with only the thinnest of justification and little understanding of the philosophical issues involved."

--William Lane Craig, Question 181

Questions for the skeptic:

Can science really answer ALL the big questions? Are there some questions it can't answer-- for instance, why we should trust science to begin with?

Is it true that we should only trust that which science can show to be true? Can science show this idea to be true?

Despite Hawking's brilliance, doesn't this declaration suggest that he's speaking out of turn on issues he has no real knowledge about?

If truth is not absolute, then isn't it a little ridiculous for Hawking to say that he has "disproved" God? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that he personally doesn't see the evidence to be convincing? Since this is only true for him, why should we care?

If truth is not absolute, is it absolutely true that truth is not absolute?

Is Isaiah Teaching About a Jesus-like Figure?

Note: The reason I'm examining Isaiah 53 here is because it is an oft quoted passage in the Old Testament (hundreds of years before Jesus) that Christians claim is a prophecy about Jesus. The Dead Sea Scrolls have demonstrated that the Isaiah 53 we have today is the same Isaiah 53 that we had BEFORE Jesus was born, so Christian tampering cannot be alleged here, as it once was by secular scholars before we discovered the Dead Sea Scrolls. What follows is pre-Christian and was accepted by pre-Jesus Jews as the Word of God. I am using a popular Jewish translation to show that Christians are not engaging in faulty translations to try to force Jesus into the Old Testament. It's also important to note that Jews in the day of Jesus were not expecting a suffering Messiah, though there are a handful of exceptions in Jewish tradition that can be pointed out (nearly all AFTER Jesus, however). In other words, it would be quite bizarre for Jewish followers of Jesus to attempt to apply this passage to the Messiah, and it is also bizarre how closely it matches the life of Jesus and what He taught about what would happen to Him. With that, I'll move onto the JPS translation of Isaiah 53, along with my notes.

Before I show you how the JPS (Jewish Publication Society) renders this passage, I want to note that this IS in fact a translation done by orthodox, conservative, and reform Jews (in other words, NOT Messianic or Christian Jews). This is the newer updated JPS translation which was finished in the 1980s. Other than changes in capitalization, punctuation (I've removed some of the quotation marks), line spacing, and adding some of the translators' footnotes INTO the text via parentheticals, I have not made any changes to their translation.

After their translation I will add a few notes of my own. I will admit that I am sharing thoughts I have gathered from others or had myself, but I am not surveying any commentaries for my notes. I may be missing or misunderstanding something because of my lack of knowledge. Please let me know if I'm not on-point on anything.

I am also going to begin in Isaiah 52:13 because that's where most scholars agree this passage starts.

Isaiah 52

13 Indeed, My servant shall prosper, be exalted and raised to great heights.

14 Just as the many were appalled at him (translators' note: Hebrew reads "you")-- so marred was his appearance, unlike that of man, His form, beyond human semblance--

15 Just so he shall startle (translators' note: Meaning of Hebrew uncertain) many nations. Kings shall be silenced because of him, for they shall see what has not been told them, shall behold what they never have heard.

Isaiah 53

1 Who can believe what we have heard? Upon whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?

2 For he has grown, by His favor, like a tree crown, like a tree trunk out of arid ground. He had no form or beauty that we should look at him: No charm, that we should find him pleasing.

3 He was despised, shunned by men, a man of suffering, familiar with disease. As one who hid his face from us (translators' note: i.e., as a leper) , He was despised, we held him of no account.

4 Yet it was our sickness he was bearing, our suffering that he endured. We accounted him plagued, smitten and afflicted by God;

5 But he was wounded because of our sins, crushed because of our iniquities. He bore the chastisement that made us whole, and by his bruises we were healed.

6 We all went astray like sheep, each going his own way; and the LORD visited upon him the guilt of all of us.

7 He was maltreated, yet he was submissive, He did not open his mouth; like a sheep being led to slaughter, like a ewe, dumb before those who shear her, he did not open his mouth.

8 By oppressive judgment he was taken away, who could describe his abode? For he was cut off from the land of the living through the sin of my people, who deserved the punishment.

9 And his grave was set among the wicked, and with the rich, in his death though he had done no injustice and had spoken no falsehood.

10 But the LORD chose to crush him by disease, that, if he made himself an offering for guilt, He might see offspring (translators' note: emendation yields "His arm," i.e. His vindication) and have long life, and that through him the LORD's purpose might prosper.

11 Out of his anguish he shall see it. He shall enjoy it to the full through his devotion.

"My righteous servant makes the many righteous, it is their punishment that he bears;

12 Assuredly, I will give him the many as his proportion, he shall receive the multitude of his spoil. For he exposed himself to death and was numbered among the sinners, whereas he bore the guilt of many and made intercession for the sinners."

My thoughts:

We first read of the servant in this passage as someone who WILL BE raised up to great heights. But the following verses suggest that something must happen first, something that brings him low.

The translators' note in verse 15 which points out that the Hebrew says "you" seems preferable to me. Just as the Jewish people had suffered so much, so also would this servant who represents them.

The word "startle" in 52:15 is given as an alternative in many Christian translations, but here is given as the main translation with the note that the Hebrew is uncertain. And yet, in EVERY other place where the word "nazah" is used in the Hebrew Bible, it doesn't mean "startle," but "sprinkle," and is usually used of sprinkling sacrificial blood (see for instance Lev 16:15)! Isaiah uses the word in 63:3 as well, where it is also clearly a reference to sprinkling blood. It seems that startle is suggested because afterwards it is said that kings would shut their mouths at him. However, the overall thrust of the passage is about someone who dies as a guilt offering for the people. While the 53rd chapter focuses on this death as being for the atonement of the Jewish people, 52:15 says that this blood effects atonement for the nations as well.

53:1-3 points out that this servant of the LORD would suffer greatly and not be held in high regard by the people, but looked over. However, verse 4 tells us something quite unexpected. It was for the sins of those who rejected him that he was suffering. Though they assumed that he must be undergoing a just punishment from God, Isaiah tells us that this servant was in fact paying the price that those who taunted him should have been paying for their sins! Verses 5 and 6 re-emphasize these points. His suffering is to make us (in particular the Jewish people, but gentiles who become part of the community of God are also in view) whole, and the guilt we acquired for turning away from God was placed on him. HE took the punishment.

Verses 7-9 tell us a few things. First of all, they reiterate that he suffered for sins he did not commit. Those men who sentenced him did so unjustly. Secondly, he viewed it as proper to accept this undeserved punishment, so he did not defend himself. Third, he suffered the fate that was reserved for criminals, and his place of burial was reserved for a rich man (see Matthew 27:57-60 in the New Testament).

Verse 10 puts this event into view from God's perspective. It was part of God's purpose to crush His servant, so that he would be an asham, a guilt offering, for the sin of God's people (that's what is meant by calling the servant the "Arm of the LORD"-- the one who accomplishes God's purposes. By dying for sins, the servant would see offspring. While the JPS emphasizes that this means he would be vindicated, I think it's important to suggest that the servant would truly see offspring through dying, but that they would not be physical offspring. After all, these are offspring that come about through his DEATH. It is after his death that he is exalted, as Isaiah 52:13-15 suggests (note the tenses). It is through his atoning death, and his being raised up which comes after it, that he is able to see SPIRITUAL offspring-- those who become children of God because they are atoned for by his servant's blood.

Verse 12 uses an important word-- intercession. Though the people have turned away from God and deserve death, God punishes His servant in their place. The servant of the LORD has interceded for them. He is able to do what they cannot-- serve as a sinless mediator between God and mankind.

For information on Jewish interpretations of Isaiah 53, please check out my post on this subject.

Questions for the skeptic:

Why does this passage so closely match the details of Jesus' life? Is it coincidence? Did the apostles lie? If so, why? What evidence do we have that would make us doubt their accounts, other than a bias against the supernatural?

Does this passage reflect a Jesus which is far more Jewish than some would suggest? It is often alleged that Jesus' story was taken from pagan mythologies (a claim which has no real scholarly support, but which persists nonetheless), but this dying and rising figure is in a Jewish source-- the Old Testament. Does this suggest that there is much more cohesion between the Old Testament and New Testament, which collects documents spanning over a thousand years, than skeptics would like to admit?

Why do you think that the sacrifice of the innocent for the sin of the guilty is an almost universal theme among mankind?

"At the Instigation of Christ"

The Roman historian Suetonius, reflecting on the period when Claudius was Emperor (41-54 A.D.), shares an interesting tidbit about an event that happened during his reign:
"Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, [Claudius] expelled them from Rome."

Interestingly, Acts 18:2 in the New Testament also gives an account of this event:
"There [Paul] met a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all the Jews to leave Rome."

It seems clear that the Jews were in fact expelled from Rome by Claudius on account of one Suetonius called Chrestus, but who is Chrestus? Many have pointed out that Chrestus is an alternative spelling of Christus, or Christ. So it seems that Jews were causing disturbances in Rome on account of a Christ-figure (Christ being the Greek version of the Hebrew Mashiach or Messiah). Many have suggested that this refers to Jewish mobs coming against those who preached Christ Jesus. This is not an unreasonable interpretation of Suetonius' words. After all, there clearly was outrage from Jewish mobs over Paul's preaching of Jesus which are recorded all throughout the book of Acts. In the chapter previous to the one quoted above, there is an account of a Jewish mob organizing in Thessalonica in response to Paul's preaching of Christ, and even the chapter the quotation is taken from gives an account of a Jewish mob bringing Paul before the authorities because they are offended at his preaching. Based on just these bare facts, it seems very reasonable to assume that a number of Roman Jews as well were being brought to violence over the preaching of Jesus, and that Claudius might have expelled them from Rome because of it.

One difficulty with this is that Acts 18 never explains why the Jews, along with Christian Jews like Priscilla and Aquila, were expelled. Based on the purpose of Luke in writing the book of Acts (to give an account of the earliest preaching of the Gospel after Jesus' ascension, and of the difficulties the disciples encountered), it would seem that he would be interested in sharing this information. This provides one piece of evidence that Claudius was not concerned about violence over the preaching of the Gospel, but it certainly doesn't destroy the case for the position that he was. Luke could have had any number of reasons for not feeling that it was necessary to give details here.

There is other evidence that Claudius was concerned with the "Christian problem" and particularly how it created difficulties among the non-Christian Jewish population of the empire. The Nazareth Inscription is among this evidence. While there are numerous opinions on how the inscription should be dated and understood, Clyde E. Billington PhD lays out a very convincing case that it was written by Claudius in response to the Jewish claim that the Christians had removed Jesus' body from the tomb, which is why they believed it couldn't be found there. Billington's translation of the Inscription reads, in part:
"if anyone legally charges that another person has destroyed, or has in any manner extracted those who have been buried, or has moved with wicked intent those who have been buried to other places, committing a crime against them, or has moved sepulcher-sealing stones, against such a person I order that a judicial tribunal be created..."

Billington also speculates as to what the impact this inscription might have had on Christians. He suggested that Herod Agrippa I, a lifetime friend of Claudius who provided priceless information to him about how to govern the Jews in a way which would be least likely to incite violence and respect their traditions, promptly responded to this edict with what we read in Acts 12:1-3:
"It was about this time that King Herod arrested some who belonged to the church, intending to persecute them. He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword. When he saw that this pleased the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also. This happened during the Feast of Unleavened Bread."

If Billington's understanding of this inscription, posted in Nazareth where Jesus lived (and after which His disciples were called Nazarenes), is correct, then it becomes clear that Claudius was concerned with the issue of Rabbinic Jewish and Christian Jewish relations, and that he very reasonably could have expelled all of the Jews (whether Rabbinic or Christian) from Rome because of the conflicts that were erupting in response to the Gospel being preached there.

Questions for the skeptic:

Since so few scholars, reflecting on the historical evidence, doubt the existence of a historical Jesus who lived, taught, was crucified, and whose followers believed was raised up, why do so many "internet atheists" doubt His existence?

Many skeptics might grant that Jesus' followers SAID they saw the risen Jesus, but that they were really lying, as many of the non-Christian Jews of that day said they did. But since almost all of Jesus' 12 disciples were martyred for their belief in the risen Jesus, and they never recanted, is this theory really tenable? What other options are left to the skeptic to explain the disciples' behavior?

Does the Bible Condone Slavery?

Does the Bible condone slavery? Yes. However, I think that it's appropriate for us to understand exactly what this means. In the Western world, we have a very specific idea about what slavery is. We will either link it to the African slave trade that plagued our nation up until the 1860s, or compare it to the cruel sex slavery that's still going on all over the world. However, I think it is important to note that while the Bible does condone slavery, it is a different kind of slavery than you and I are used to thinking about. I want to lay out just a few of the details from Scripture to paint a picture of what slavery looked like in ancient Israel, and then I would like to respond to some charges from skeptics that the kind of slavery the Bible allowed was as oppressive and dehumanizing as the slavery that took place in the United States.

Slavery in Old Testament times was quite different from American slavery up until the 1860s. In ancient Israel, slaves were acquired either from Israelites who had failed to pay their debts so sold themselves into slavery to regain financial freedom again, or from other nations, generally taken after war. It was forbidden, however, to kidnap men and sell them as slaves under penalty of death. Hebrew slaves were freed after 6 years (their masters were also ordered to provide them with enough financial security to start their lives over in Deuteronomy 15:12-18), or on the Jubilee which happened every 50 years, though foreign slaves could remain slaves and be passed down through the slave-owner's family. All slaves, whether Hebrew or foreign, were given the Sabbath day off to rest.

There is one law in the Old Testament that anti-Christian website religioustolerance.org has described as:

"[permitting] owners to beat their slaves severely, even to the point of killing them. However, as long as the slave lingered longer than 24 hours before dying of the abuse, the owner was not regarded as having committed a crime, because -- after all -- the slave was his property."

How well does this description capture the original law?

"If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property." (Exodus 21:20-21, NASB)

[NOTE: Before I begin to respond to this passage at it is laid out, I want to first note that some translators (including the NIV version of the Bible) interpret a phrase in it as, "if he stands after a day or two," not "if he survives a day or two." This would change the meaning of the verse significantly. However, I will, for sake of argument, deal with this passage as if it read "he survives a day or two," implying that the servant dies after a couple of days. Most of the arguments I use below would still apply to understanding the perceived cruelty of this passage, but the outcome of the slave-owner's strike would be different and certainly more morbid if the "survives a day or two" translation is accepted.]

First of all, it is misleading to translate the Hebrew word "naqam" as "punished" in verse 20, but "vengeance" in 21 (or "punished" in both places as the King James translates it). The word means something like "avenged" or "vengeance" everywhere else it is used in the Bible. Because of this, I believe the verse is saying that the man who strikes his slave so that he/she dies that day will be killed for what he has done to his slave. The fact that slave-owners would be punished for killing their slaves creates an incredibly important distinction between Israel and many other societies with slaves-- the slave was viewed as a human being with a right to life.

The Religious Tolerance author made another point also. The owner was not regarded as committing a crime if the slave died a few days later. Why is this? The text explicitly gives one reason, which is that the slave is under the authority of his master. This does in fact give a sanction to the idea that it was considered appropriate to use force against a slave who was (presumably) being disobedient or refused to work. This may sound harsh to modern ears, but this is what the Bible seems to indicate. But despite the fact that the Bible says it is sometimes okay to use force against your slaves to discipline them, it seems clear from the context of this verse that the slave-master who INTENDS to kill his slave is a capital criminal. If he had intended to kill his slave, the slave would have surely died that very day without the advent of modern medicine and life support. If he did not intend to, if a blow that lead to death was unintentional, the slave would have lived on, at least for a few days.

This is an important distinction because the Law of Moses elsewhere (in fact, only a few verses before this passage in Exodus 21:12-14!) defines murder as intentionally taking the life of another human being. Manslaughter, on the other hand, was not punishable by death. In this regard, this slavery law is not very different from the laws where non-slaves are affected. This would change how we might understand the verse to something like, "if a man purposefully hits his slave so that he dies, the slave will be avenged. But if it was an accident, he will not be avenged because it is not against the law to chastise a disobedient slave, nor is it a capital offense to kill someone on accident."

Some may accuse me of "reading into the text," however, I don't believe I am guilty of doing this. The laws of ancient Israel are not formulated like ours are. They show principles by giving examples, whereas we are much more specific in giving our laws. Because of this, we may come across a law in the Bible which forbids a man from taking both the eggs from a nest and eating the mother of the chicks, and totally misunderstand why such a law would be written. That is because this command is not a PRINCIPLE of morality, but an EXAMPLE of it-- do not destroy the environment around you, but take what you need to survive. We may also note the command to establish a fence around one's roof. Because people would often climb onto the roof to escape the heat of the house, a fence would be a way to protect people from falling and being hurt. This law does not only command that we build fences on our roofs, but that we secure our homes to protect our families and friends. To pull ONLY the words from these two texts and ignore the principles behind them would be to ignore the purpose behind what the author is writing. The same goes for the above verses on slavery. While it is accurate to say, "this passage says it's okay to kill your slave if they die a few days later," it completely misses the point of why the law was given. I am not reading into the text by discerning purpose, but attempting to handle the text according to why the author wrote it. It is the skeptic who refuses interpretation who is handling the text inappropriately (the examples I used are from Deuteronomy 22).

It is of course noteworthy that the Israelites had been slaves in Egypt and had been killed and abused. They themselves supported this law, which on one hand argued that it was okay to use force against a lazy or disobedient slave, while also supporting the other part of the law which argued that slave-owners who purposefully killed their slaves must be paid back for their sin. Furthermore, only a few verses later we see another law related to slavery which gives us a look into the heart of the same author who wrote the first:

"If a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye. And if he knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let him go free on account of his tooth." (Exodus 21:26-27)

This passage gives us irrefutable proof that the author of Exodus is concerned for the rights of slaves in ancient Israel. Not only is the kind of strike intended to kill a slave forbidden, but even a strike hard enough to knock out a tooth is forbidden. Using this kind of force against your slave would result in his automatic freedom. This seems to give strength to the above interpretation of verses 20-21 which argues that the main concern in view is protecting slaves from unnecessary violence, while still giving the slave-owner the right to discipline disobedient slaves who are benefiting from their master's financial support (through food, clothing, shelter, etc.) but refuse to earn it. Similarly (though not the same circumstances), a disobedient child could be punished via the "rod," and parents were actually explicitly encouraged to do so when the situation called for it (Proverbs 13:24, 22:15).

Not only were the rights to life and a non-abusive master extended to slaves, but the slave whose master was harsh and dangerous had the right to run away!

"You shall not hand over to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. He shall live with you in your midst, in the place which he shall choose in one of your towns where it pleases him; you shall not mistreat him." Deuteronomy 23:15-16

I think a clearer picture is emerging of what slavery looked like under ancient Israel (that is, if it was indeed following the Laws which God had given them). It was considered a necessary institution by society, but God placed laws on His people with the result that those those who fell into slavery were being treated with dignity and respect, as human beings just like their masters.

"The most astonishingly unique slave law in the Old Testament is the law of asylum in Deuteronomy 23:15-16. Runaway slaves, far from being punished or sent back, were to be given freedom of residence in a village of their choice. The universal law of the rest of contemporary societies (as indeed of modern societies before slavery was abolished) not only punished runaway slaves but also laid severe penalties on anyone who gave them refuge. Israel's law was the diametrical opposite, on of the most countercultural pieces of Old Testament legislation to be found. Israel's law not only allowed runaway slaves freedom; it went beyond that and commanded their protection."

(p. 336, Old Testament Ethics for the People of God, Christopher J. H. Wright)

So yes, the Bible does not condemn the practice of slavery per se, though it would have an awful lot to say those who supported the African slave trade and much of the slave trade all over the world today. The Bible, as opposed to the godless institutions of slavery we have encouraged, supports the idea that slaves are human beings like their masters with rights to life and fair treatment, whether Hebrew or foreign, and allowed for abused slaves to run from their masters if they saw fit. It was a social practice that God allowed, though biblical principles such as the equality of all men (Acts 17:26, Romans 2:11, Galatians 2:6, Ephesians 6:5-9, James 2:1-9, Philemon) would in time overturn it.

Questions for the skeptic:

Does my explanation help you to feel more comfortable with the Bible's allowance of slavery?

If not, what is it about the practice of slavery specifically that bothers you?

Why does this quality of slavery bother you?

How would you take an argument like Noam Chomsky made regarding capitalism and socialism that claimed that people who "owned" their workers treated them better than those who "rented" their workers? Did capitalism alleviate the sufferings of slavery or make them worse?

If the practice of slavery was carefully regulated to allow for people to leave when they choose, and if they received fair treatment, would you still object to it?

What Did the Council of Nicea REALLY Do?

I plan on posting some new material soon, but in the mean time I wanted to post this terrific article from Dr. James White on the subject of the Council of Nicea. If you have heard (or have even made the claim that) this Council invented the deity of Christ, Roman Catholicism, or decided what books should be Scripture by destroying recognized Gnostic texts, then I strongly encourage you to read this:

http://www.equip.org/articles/what-really-happened-at-nicea-

What Really Happened at Nicea?

DN206

James R. White

Summary

The Council of Nicea is often misrepresented by cults and other religious movements. The actual concern of the council was clearly and unambiguously the relationship between the Father and the Son. Is Christ a creature, or true God? The council said He was true God. Yet, the opponents of the deity of Christ did not simply give up after the council’s decision. In fact, they almost succeeded in overturning the Nicene affirmation of Christ’s deity. But faithful Christians like Athanasius continued to defend the truth, and in the end, truth triumphed over error.

The conversation intensified quickly. "You can’t really trust the Bible," my Latter-day Saints acquaintance said, "because you really don’t know what books belong in it. You see, a bunch of men got together and decided the canon of Scripture at the Council of Nicea, picking some books, rejecting others." A few others were listening in on the conversation at the South Gate of the Mormon Temple in Salt Lake City. It was the LDS General Conference, and I again heard the Council of Nicea presented as that point in history where something "went wrong," where some group of unnamed, faceless men "decided" for me what I was supposed to believe. I quickly corrected him about Nicea — nothing was decided, or even said, about the canon of Scripture at that council.¹

I was reminded how often the phrase "the Council of Nicea" is used as an accusation by those who reject the Christian faith. New Agers often allege that the council removed the teaching of reincarnation from the Bible.² And of course, Jehovah’s Witnesses and critics of the deity of Christ likewise point to that council as the "beginning of the Trinity" or the "first time the deity of Christ was asserted as orthodox teaching." Others see it as the beginning of the union of church and state in light of the participation of the Roman Emperor, Constantine. Some even say it was the beginning of the Roman Catholic church.

THE BACKGROUND

Excepting the apostolic council in Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15, the Council of Nicea stands above other early councils of the church as far as its scope and its focus. Luther called it "the most sacred of all councils."³ When it began on June 19, 325, the fires of persecution had barely cooled. The Roman Empire had been unsuccessful in its attempt to wipe out the Christian faith. Fourteen years had elapsed since the final persecutions under the Emperor Galerius had ended. Many of the men who made up the Council of Nicea bore in their bodies the scars of persecution. They had been willing to suffer for the name of Christ.

The council was called by the Emperor Constantine. Leading bishops in the church agreed to participate, so serious was the matter at hand. To understand why the first universal council was called, we must go back to around A.D. 318. In the populous Alexandria suburb of Baucalis, a well-liked presbyter by the name of Arius began teaching in opposition to the bishop of Alexandria, Alexander. Specifically, he disagreed with Alexander’s teaching that Jesus, the Son of God, had existed eternally, being "generated" eternally by the Father. Instead, Arius insisted that "there was a time when the Son was not." Christ must be numbered among the created beings — highly exalted, to be sure, but a creation, nonetheless. Alexander defended his position, and it was not long before Arius was declared a heretic in a local council in 321.

This did not end the matter. Arius simply moved to Palestine and began promoting his ideas there. Alexander wrote letters to the churches in the area, warning them against those he called the "Exukontians," from a Greek phrase meaning "out of nothing." Arius taught that the Son of God was created "out of nothing." Arius found an audience for his teachings, and over the course of the next few years the debate became so heated that it came to the attention of Constantine, the Emperor.

Having consolidated his hold on the Empire, Constantine promoted unity in every way possible. He recognized that a schism in the Christian church would be just one more destabilizing factor in his empire, and he moved to solve the problem.⁴ While he had encouragement from men like Hosius, bishop of Cordova, and Eusebius of Caesarea, Constantine was the one who officially called for the council.⁵

THE PARTICIPANTS AND THEIR VIEWS

The Council of Nicea was mostly Eastern. According to tradition, 318 bishops were in attendance, though most historians believe this number is a bit high. The vast majority came from the East, with less than a dozen representing the rest of the Empire.

The council was divided into three groups. Arius was in attendance, at the command of the Emperor, along with a few supporters. Most notable of these were two Egyptian bishops, Theonas and Secundus, as well as Eusebius of Nicomedia. This group represented the viewpoint that Christ was of a different substance (Greek: heteroousios) than the Father, that is, that He is a creature.

The "orthodox" group was led primarily by Hosius of Cordova and Alexander of Alexandria (accompanied by his brilliant young deacon, and later champion of the Nicene position, Athanasius⁶). They represented the view that Christ was of the same substance (Greek: homo-ousios⁷) as the Father, that is, that He has eternally shared in the one essence that is God and in full deity.

The middle group, led by Eusebius of Caesarea (and hence often called the "Eusebian" party), distrusted the term homoousios, primarily because it had been used in the previous century by the modalistic⁸ heretic Sabellius and others who wished to teach the error that the Father and the Son were one person. This middle group agreed with the orthodox party that Jesus was fully God, but they were concerned that the term homoousios could be misunderstood to support the false idea that the Father and Son are one person. The middle group therefore presented the idea that the Son was of a similar substance (Greek: homoiousios) as the Father. By this means they hoped to avoid both the error of Arius as well as the perceived danger of Sabellianism found in the term homoousios.

Party/Leaders	View of Christ
Arian/Arius	of a different substance — heteroousios
Orthodox/Alexander, Hosius, Athanasius	of the same substance — homoousios
Eusebian/Eusebius of Caesarea	of a similar substance — homoiousios

THE ROLE OF CONSTANTINE

We are dependent, in large measure, on the words of Eusebius of Caesarea for our knowledge of many of the events at the council. This is somewhat unfortunate, because Eusebius, the first "church historian," was a partisan participant as well. Historians recognize that his viewpoint is influenced by his desire for the favor of the Emperor and by his own political and theological goals and positions. Philip Schaff, in reproducing Eusebius’s description of the entrance of the Emperor into the council, speaks of Eusebius’s "panegyrical flattery."⁹ Eusebius presents Constantine in the highest possible terms so as to enhance his own position.

What really was Constantine’s role? Often it is alleged (especially by Jehovah’s Witnesses, for example) that, for whatever reasons, Constantine forced the "same substance" view upon the council,¹⁰ or, at the very least, insured that it would be adopted. This is not the case. There is no question that Constantine wanted a unified church after the Council of Nicea. But he was no theologian, nor did he really care to any degree what basis would be used to forge the unity he desired. Later events show that he didn’t have any particular stake in the termhomoousios and was willing to abandon it, if he saw that doing so would be of benefit to him. As Schaff rightly points out with reference to the term itself, "The word...was not an invention of the council of Nicea, still less of Constantine, but had previously arisen in theological language, and occurs even in Origen [185-254] and among the Gnostics...."¹¹ Constantine is not the source or origin of the term, and the council did not adopt the term at his command.

THE DECISION AND THE CREED

The truth of how the council came to use the term is not difficult to discern. Athanasius notes that the gathered bishops truly desired to express their faith in primarily scriptural language, and they tried to do so. But every time they came up with a statement that was limitedsolely to biblical terms, the Arians would find a way of "reading" the statement so as to allow for agreement.¹² They were forced to see that they needed to use a term that could not be misunderstood, that would clearly differentiate between a belief in the full deity of Christ and all those positions that would compromise that belief. Therefore, they focused on the term homoousios as being completely antithetical to the Arian position, and at the same time reflective of the scriptural truth that Jesus Christ is not a creature, but is fully God, incarnate deity.

The "orthodox" party had to express clearly to the "middle group" that by the use of the term homoousios they were not in any way attempting to give aid and comfort to the modalists and Sabellians in the East who continued to teach their errors even in the days of Nicea. They were not compromising the existence of three Persons, but were instead safeguarding the full deity of the Persons, and in particular, the Son.¹³The resulting creed, signed by all but Arius and two bishops, was quite clear in its position:

We believe...in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one substance (homoousios) with the Father, through Whom all things were made....

The creed also contained the "anathema" (i.e., condemnation) for those who rejected these truths, and for the first time, such anathemas carried with them civil repercussions. Arius and some of his followers were banished, even though for a short time. This set a precedent that eventually would have tremendous impact on culture and church, but it is also a separate issue from the theological proclamation of the council.

Nicea did not come up with something "new" in the creed. Belief in the deity of Christ was as old as the apostles themselves, who enunciated this truth over and over again.¹⁴ References to the full deity of Christ are abundant in the period prior to the Council of Nicea. Ignatius (died c. 108), the great martyr bishop of Antioch, could easily speak of Jesus Christ as God at the opening of the second century. More than once Ignatius speaks of Jesus Christ as "our God."¹⁵ When writing to Polycarp he can exhort him to "await Him that is above every season, the Eternal, the Invisible, (who for our sake became visible!), the Impalpable, the Impassible, (who for our sake suffered!), who in all ways endured for our sake."¹⁶ Ignatius shows the highest view of Christ at a very early stage, when he writes to the Ephesians: "There is only one physician, of flesh and of spirit, generate and ingenerate, God in man, true Life in death, Son of Mary and Son of God, first passible and then impassible, Jesus Christ our Lord."¹⁷

Melito of Sardis (c. 170-180), a much less well-known figure, was tremendously gifted in expressing the ancient faith of the church regarding the deity of Christ:

And so he was lifted up upon a tree and an inscription was provided too, to indicate who was being killed. Who was it? It is a heavy thing to say, and a most fearful thing to refrain from saying. But listen, as you tremble in the face of him on whose account the earth trembled. He who hung the earth in place is hanged. He who fixed the heavens in place is fixed in place. He who made all things fast is made fast on the tree. The Master is insulted. God is murdered. The King of Israel is destroyed by an Israelite hand.¹⁸

Nicea was not creating some new doctrine, some new belief, but clearly, explicitly, defining truth against error. The council had no idea that they, by their gathering together, possessed some kind of sacramental power of defining beliefs: they sought to clarify biblical truth, not to put themselves in the forefront and make themselves a second source of authority.

This can easily be seen from the fact that Athanasius, in defending the Nicene council, does so on the basis of its harmony with Scripture, not on the basis of the council having some inherent authority in and of itself. Note his words: "Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrines so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture."¹⁹

The relationship between the sufficient Scriptures and the "Nicene Bishops" should be noted carefully. The Scriptures are not made insufficientby the council; rather, the words of the council "remind" one of the "religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture." Obviously, then, the authority of the council is derivative from its fidelity to Scripture.

CANON #6

While the creed of the council was its central achievement, it was not the only thing that the bishops accomplished during their meeting. Twenty canons were presented dealing with various disciplinary issues within the church. Of most interest to us today was the sixth, which read as follows:

Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges.²⁰

This canon is significant because it demonstrates that at this time there was no concept of a single universal head of the church with jurisdiction over everyone else. While later Roman bishops would claim such authority, resulting in the development of the papacy, at this time no Christian looked to one individual, or church, as the final authority. This is important because often we hear it alleged that the Trinity, or the Nicene definition of the deity of Christ, is a "Roman Catholic" concept "forced" on the church by the pope. The simple fact of the matter is, when the bishops gathered at Nicea they did not acknowledge the bishop of Rome as anything more than the leader of the most influential church in the West.²¹

THE AFTERMATH

Modern Christians often have the impression that ancient councils held absolute sway, and when they made "the decision," the controversy ended. This is not true. Though Nicea is seen as one of the greatest of the councils, it had to fight hard for acceptance. The basis of its final victory was not the power of politics, nor the endorsement of established religion. There was one reason the Nicene definition prevailed: its fidelity to the testimony of the Scriptures.

During the six decades between the Council of Nicea and the Council of Constantinople in 381, Arianism experienced many victories. There were periods where Arian bishops constituted the majority of the visible ecclesiastical hierarchy. Primarily through the force of political power, Arian sympathizers soon took to undoing the condemnation of Arius and his theology. Eusebius of Nicomedia and others attempted to overturn Nicea, and for a number of decades it looked as if they might succeed. Constantine adopted a compromising position under the influence of various sources, including Eusebius of Caesarea and a politically worded "confession" from Arius. Constantine put little stock in the definition of Nicea itself: he was a politician to the last. Upon his death, his second son Constantius ruled in the East, and he gave great aid and comfort to Arianism. United by their rejection of the homoousion, semi-Arians and Arians worked to unseat a common enemy, almost always proceeding with political power on their side.

Under Constantius, council after council met in this location or that. So furious was the activity that one commentator wrote of the time, "The highways were covered with galloping bishops."²² Most importantly, regional councils meeting at Ariminum, Seleucia, and Sirmium presented Arian and semi-Arian creeds, and many leaders were coerced into subscribing to them. Even Liberius, bishop of Rome, having been banished from his see (position as bishop) and longing to return, was persuaded to give in and compromise on the matter.²³

During the course of the decades following Nicea, Athanasius, who had become bishop of Alexandria shortly after the council, was removed from his see five times, once by force of 5,000 soldiers coming in the front door while he escaped out the back! Hosius, now nearly 100 years old, was likewise forced by imperial threats to compromise and give place to Arian ideas. At the end of the sixth decade of the century, it looked as if Nicea would be defeated. Jerome would later describe this moment in history as the time when "the whole world groaned and was astonished to find itself Arian."²⁴

Yet, in the midst of this darkness, a lone voice remained strong. Arguing from Scripture, fearlessly reproaching error, writing from refuge in the desert, along the Nile, or in the crowded suburbs around Alexandria, Athanasius continued the fight. His unwillingness to give place — even when banished by the Emperor, disfellowshipped by the established church, and condemned by local councils and bishops alike — gave rise to the phrase, Athanasius contra mundum: "Athanasius against the world." Convinced that Scripture is "sufficient above all things,"²⁵Athanasius acted as a true "Protestant" in his day.²⁶ Athanasius protested against the consensus opinion of the established church, and did so because he was compelled by scriptural authority. Athanasius would have understood, on some of those long, lonely days of exile, what Wycliffe meant a thousand years later: "If we had a hundred popes, and if all the friars were cardinals, to the law of the gospel we should bow, more than all this multitude."²⁷

Movements that depend on political favor (rather than God’s truth) eventually die, and this was true of Arianism. As soon as it looked as if the Arians had consolidated their hold on the Empire, they turned to internal fighting and quite literally destroyed each other. They had no one like a faithful Athanasius, and it was not long before the tide turned against them. By A.D. 381, the Council of Constantinople could meet and reaffirm, without hesitancy, the Nicene faith, complete with the homoousious clause. The full deity of Christ was affirmed, not because Nicea had said so, but because God had revealed it to be so. Nicea’s authority rested upon the solid foundation of Scripture. A century after Nicea, we find the great bishop of Hippo, Augustine, writing to Maximin, an Arian, and saying: "I must not press the authority of Nicea against you, nor you that of Ariminum against me; I do not acknowledge the one, as you do not the other; but let us come to ground that is common to both — the testimony of the Holy Scriptures."²⁸

NICEA TODAY

Why do Christians believe in the deity of Christ today? Is it because they have been forced to do so by legislated theology from councils and popes? No, it is because the Scriptures teach this truth. When orthodox believers affirm the validity of the creed hammered out at Nicea, they are simply affirming a concise, clear presentation of scriptural truth. The authority of the Nicene creed, including its assertion of thehomoousion, is not to be found in some concept of an infallible church, but in the fidelity of the creed to scriptural revelation. It speaks with the voice of the apostles because it speaks the truth as they proclaimed it. Modern Christians can be thankful for the testimony of an Athanasius who stood for these truths even when the vast majority stood against him. We should remember his example in our day.

James R. White is Scholar in Residence at the College of Christian Studies, Grand Canyon University, an adjunct professor at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary (AZ Campus) and Faraston Theological Seminary, and Director of Ministries for Alpha and Omega Ministries in Phoenix, Arizona.

NOTES

¹The Council of Nicea did not take up the issue of the canon of Scripture. In fact, only regional councils touched on this issue (Hippo in 393, Carthage in 397) until much later. The New Testament canon developed in the consciousness of the church over time, just as the Old Testament canon did. See Don Kistler, ed., Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1995).
²See Joseph P. Gudel, Robert M. Bowman, Jr., and Dan R. Schlesinger, "Reincarnation — Did the Church Suppress It?" Christian Research Journal, Summer 1987, 8-12.
³Gordon Rupp, Luther’s Progress to the Diet of Worms (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1964), 66.
⁴Much has been written about Constantine’s religious beliefs and his "conversion" to Christianity. Some attribute to him high motives in his involvement at Nicea; others see him as merely pursuing political ends. In either case, we do not need to decide the issue of the validity of his confession of faith, for the decisions of the Nicene Council on the nature of the Son were not dictated by Constantine, and even after the Council he proved himself willing to "compromise" on the issue, all for the sake of political unity. The real battle over the deity of Christ was fought out in his shadow, to be sure, but it took place on a plane he could scarcely understand, let alone dominate.
⁵Later centuries would find the idea of an ecumenical council being called by anyone but the bishop of Rome, the pope, unthinkable. Hence, long after Nicea, in A.D. 680, the story began to circulate that in fact the bishop of Rome called the Council, and even to this day some attempt to revive this historical anachronism, claiming the two presbyters (Victor and Vincentius) who represented Sylvester, the aged bishop of Rome, in fact sat as presidents over the Council. See Philip Schaff’s comments in his History of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 3:335.
⁶Athanasius’s role at the council has been hotly debated. As a deacon, he would not, by later standards, even be allowed to vote. But his brilliance was already seen, and it would eventually fall to him to defend the decisions of the Council, which became his lifelong work.
⁷The Latin translation is consubstantialis, consubstantial, which is the common rendering of the term in English versions of the final form of the Nicene Creed.
⁸Modalism is the belief that there is one Person in the Godhead who at times acts as the Father, and other times as the Son, and still other times as the Spirit. Modalism denies the Trinity, which asserts that the three Persons have existed eternally.
⁹Schaff, 3:624.
¹⁰The only basis that can be presented for such an idea is found in a letter, written by Eusebius of Caesarea during the council itself to his home church, explaining why he eventually gave in and signed the creed, and agreed to the term homoousios. At one point Eusebius writes that Constantine "encouraged the others to sign it and to agree with its teaching, only with the addition of the word ‘consubstantial’ [i.e.,homoousios]." The specific term used by Eusebius, parakeleueto, can be rendered as strongly as "command" or as mildly as "advise" or "encourage." There is nothing in Eusebius’s letter, however, that would suggest that he felt he had been ordered to subscribe to the use of the term, nor that he felt that Constantine was the actual source of the term.
¹¹Schaff, 3:628.
¹²Someone might say that this demonstrates the insufficiency of Scripture to function as the sole infallible rule of faith for the church; that is, that it denies sola scriptura. But sola scriptura does not claim the Bible is sufficient to answer every perversion of its own revealed truths. Peter knew that there would be those who twist the Scriptures to their own destruction, and it is good to note that God has not deemed it proper to transport all heretics off the planet at the first moment they utter their heresy. Struggling with false teaching has, in God’s sovereign plan, been a part of the maturing of His people.
¹³For many generations misunderstandings between East and West, complicated by the language differences (Greek remaining predominate in the East, Latin becoming the normal language of religion in the West), kept controversy alive even when there was no need for it.
¹⁴Titus 2:13, 2 Pet. 1:1, John 1:1-14, Col. 1:15-17, Phil. 2:5-11, etc.
¹⁵See, for example, his epistle to the Ephesians, 18, and to the Romans, 3, in J. B. Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer, eds., The Apostolic Fathers(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984), 141 and 150.
¹⁶Polycarp 3, The Apostolic Fathers, 161.
¹⁷Ephesians 7, The Apostolic Fathers, 139.
¹⁸Melito of Sardis, A Homily on the Passover, sect. 95-96, as found in Richard Norris, Jr., The Christological Controversy (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), 46. This homily is one of the best examples of early preaching that is solidly biblical in tone and Christ-centered in message.
¹⁹Athanasius, De Synodis, 6, as found in Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds., Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Series II (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), IV:453.
²⁰Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Series II, XIV:15.
²¹For those who struggle with the idea that it was not "Roman Catholicism" that existed in those days, consider this: if one went into a church today, and discovered that the people gathered there did not believe in the papacy, did not believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary, the Bodily Assumption of Mary, purgatory, indulgences, did not believe in the concept of transubstantiation replete with the communion host’s total change in accidence and substance, and had no tabernacles on the altars in their churches, would one think he or she was in a "Roman Catholic" church? Of course not. Yet, the church of 325 had none of these beliefs, either. Hence, while they called themselves "Catholics," they would not have had any idea what "Roman Catholic" meant.
²²Ammianus Marcellinus, as cited by Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), III:632.
²³For a discussion of the lapse of Liberius, see Schaff, III:635-36. For information on the relationship of Liberius and the concept of papal infallibility, see George Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1959), 425-29, and Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985), I:176-78.
²⁴Jerome, Adversus Luciferianos, 19, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Series II, 6:329.
²⁵Athanasius, De Synodis, 6, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Series II, 4:453.
²⁶I credit one of my students, Michael Porter, with this phraseology.
²⁷Robert Vaughn, The Life and Opinions of John de Wycliffe (London: Holdworth and Ball, 1831), 313. See 312-17 for a summary of Wycliffe’s doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture.
²⁸Augustine, To Maximim the Arian, as cited by George Salman, The Infallibility of the Church (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1959), 295.