The Council of Nicaea established the definition of orthodox Christianity, specifically the belief that the Son was eternal, uncreated, and divine, of the same essence as the father. It would be a mistake to assume that this brought an end to the struggles with heresy. Indeed, the Nicene Creed drew a line in the sand. The theological issue at stake could no longer be regarded as an internal dispute over the definition of a few theological terms. Now, the conflict between two dramatically different views of God and the world were given external expression.

Far too often, this conflict involved the empire siding with the Arians to persecute the catholics. One of the notable exceptions was Theodosius the Great. We have no time to delve into his biographical details; suffice it to say that he is one of those rare rulers to whom the appellation "the Great" can be applied without a great deal of irony. Having ascended to the throne, he set about the business of promoting the catholic faith and defending the Empire from its enemies without and within. Shortly after his ascenscion, he convened a council in Constantinople to deal with the theological controversies of the late fourth century. This council, the First Council of Constantinople, has come to be regarded as the Second Ecumenical Council. Among the theological threats were Sabellianism, various forms of semi-Arianism, and the Pneumotomachoi (so named by Athanasius, the word means "those who speak evil against the Spirit"). See Rushdoony, pg. 18 for comments on ecumenicism in the early Church.

We will deal with Sabellianism when we discuss various Christological errors here in a few weeks. For now, let us focus on what the council had to say regarding the Spirit. The most important document produced by the council was a revision of the Nicene Creed. The revised version reads as follows:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of his 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 were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost and 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 sitteth at the Right Hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead. Whose kingdom shall have no end. (I)

And [we believe] in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver-of-Life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spake by the prophets. And [we believe] in one, holy, (II) Catholic and Apostolic Church. We acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins, [and] we look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Do any of the differences stand out to you? The biggest is the section regarding the Holy Spirit. Even among the orthodox in the early fourth century, there was some reticence about making definitive statements regarding the Holy Spirit. They were hesitant in condemning those who regarded the Spirit as nothing more than a power emanating from the Father, or as a created being. By the time of Constantinople, it had become clear that the Church could no longer keep its silence.

The two chief ways in which one can fail to understand the Spirit are to deny His personality and to deny His divinity. How does the creed address each of these issues? What are the practical implications of each of these problems?

The Holy Spirit is the person of the Godhead whose primary work involves inhabiting His Church and His children, renewing them unto life, bringing them into union with God, sanctifying them, and enlightening them. On a subjective level, it is through the Spirit that we know God. If the Spirit is not truly God, or is not truly personal, we lack anyone who can bring us into communion with Him, and God once again recedes into irrelevancy.

As homework, go home and find passages in Scripture that you would appeal to in expressing an orthodox doctrine of the Spirit. We intend at some point to offer a class covering the doctrine of God. In that class, we will more fully investigate the scriptural basis for the doctrine of the Trinity.

Two Great Preachers

In the time left, let us turn our attention to the two greatest preachers of the fourth century. Their biographies reveal quite a bit about church life in the fourth century. More importantly, they illustrate a basic difference between the eastern and western churches. In the West, the church was able to successfully exercise a prophetic ministry with regard to the state and its officials. In the East, attempts to stand up to a corrupt state were easily crushed. This difference is one of the many small things that were tending toward a break between east and west.

Ambrose

Ambrose is best remembered for his role in the conversion of Augustine, whom we shall meet next week. He is an interesting figure in his own right, and it is regrettable that we possess comparatively little of his preaching in written form.

Ambrose had been trained in rhetoric, well prepared for a career in civil administration. He was appointed governor of Milan, where he soon established a reputation for fair and efficient rule. In 373, the peace of the city was shattered by the death of its bishop, Auxentius, who had been appointed by the emperor, an Arian. Both the catholics and the Arians hoped to claim the see. To preserve order, Ambrose decided to attend the election.

At the election, a child called out "Ambrose, bishop!" and the call was taken up by the crowd. Ambrose attempted to decline the election, and even to flee the city, but his attempts were in vain. When it was made known to him that the emperor approved of the results of the election, he decided that he had no choice but to be consecrated.

Ambrose had not yet been baptised, so it was necessary first to administer the sacrament. Following that, he was rapidly raised through the various ministerial orders.

While Ambrose was serving as bishop of Milan, the Western empire was ruled by Gratian and his half-brother Valentinian II. Valentinian was still a child, so Gratian also served as his regent. When Gratian was killed in a rebellion, the child was in grave danger from the usurper, Maximus. Valentinian and his mother Justina sent Ambrose as their emissary to to Maximus. Ambrose successfully preserved the peace and prevented the expected invasion.

Despite this, Amrbose and Justina were not cordial. The empress was an Arian and desired the spread of Arian worship. She attempted to place an Arian basilica in Milan and the rob the catholic Church there of its possessions. Ambrose refused and forced the empress to back down.

Some years later, following a confrontation with Maximus, Thedosius became the sole emperor. Despite the fact that he was orthodox, Ambrose and Theodosius had a number of public conflicts, which always saw Ambrose the victor. The emperor respected Ambrose's zeal, and the men became closer over the years. When he knew his death was near, Theodosius asked Ambrose to come and be with him.

Chrysostom

The career of John of Constantinople was roughly contemporaneous with that of Ambrose. A hundred years after his death he was given the nickname Chrysostom, "golden mouthed", in reference to his reputation for excellence in preaching. His writings and homilies have continued to have a lasting appeal. He was the church father that Calvin felt most drawn to.

John started out as a student of rhetoric in his hometown of Antioch. He was baptised as a young man, and decided to pursue the monastic ideal. His mother objected at first, so he compromised by establishing a semi-monastic community in his own home where he cared for her until her death. After that, he retreated into the caves in the mountains for six years.

He then returned to Antioch, where he was ordained a deacon, then a presbyter. He began preaching and his reputation began to spread throughout the Eastern church. In 397, the see of Constantinople became vacant, and the emperor ordered that John be taken to the capitol to fill the vacancy.

Given his monastic background, John had little patience with the vanity and indolence of the city. He began his career there by reforming the clergy (read p.196 for examples), but soon turned to very public calls for the wealthy of the city to repent.

The empress Eudoxia, among others, felt humiliated, and began scheming with Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria, to plot the downfall of John. Theophilus condemned a small council of bishops and with the aid of false witnesses had John declared a heretic. Eudoxia then asked the emperor, Arcadius, to banish John, which he did. John left the city peacefully, but an earthquake soon followed. Fearing that it was a sign of divine wrath, the emperor recalled John.

The issues at the heart of the conflict remained. Some few months later, John was again exiled to the village of Cucusus, where he began to plead his case by letters. He was relocated once more to a town far away on the shores of the Black Sea. En route, he died.

Church vs. State, East and West

The reason I include these particular stories is to illustrate a lasting difference in the East and West. Historically, in the West, the Church was able to exercise her prophetic office in calling even emperors to repentance. In the East, however, the power of the State was supreme. Despite the differing results, I think we can learn quite a lot from the way Ambrose and John confronted their culture compared to the way evangelical Americans do so (or too often, fail to do so).

Rather than making the observation head on, let me share with you a short parable written by Douglas Wilson:

The Hermit Consultant
Topic: Parable

Once there was a church which decided that the church was not called to political involvement. Rather, they were called to preach the Word, and administer the sacraments. This pleased the whole congregation greatly and they gave themselves over to worship, and to the reformation of worship according to Scripture.

But then a curious thing happened. The more they devoted themselves to Word and sacrament, the more they found themselves embroiled in what some called political questions and controversies. They were confused about this, and so they asked a very wise man, a friend of their church in another city, about it. In another day and time, this man might have been called a prophet, or a monk, or a hermit, but the people of this church just thought he was a consultant.

"What do you mean by politics?" he asked them. They all looked at one another. "We don’t know," they said. After discussing it for a short time, they said, "We used to be very active in supporting candidates, gathering petitions, getting out the vote, that sort of thing. We don’t do that any more, but since we quit, the non-believers around us have become increasingly agitated, and we find ourselves speaking to them on all sorts of issues that are not directly related to Word and sacrament."

The hermit -- I mean the consultant -- shook his head slowly. "You did not give up politics, nor should you. You gave up coercive politics. Our weapons are not carnal. But the true worship of God is always necessarily public. You are city on a hill. You are the light of the world."

"What does this mean?" they asked.

"Your authority is built upon Word and sacrament. Not upon the ballot box, or the petition, or the sword. But it is true authority, and it is public authority."

"As the church, you cannot abandon the political without abandoning the Scriptures. But you can, and should, abandon politics -- a vain idol, if ever there was one."

Posted by Douglas Wilson - 5/18/2004 7:45:02 PM