.:YES, YOU SHOULD BELIEVE IN THE
TRINITY!!!
—A Page-by-Page Response To The Watchtower
Society’s Brochure: “Should
You Believe in the Trinity?”
**Click HERE
to view the Yes, You Should Believe in the Trinity Book
Table of Contents**
See also an Article by Michael
Partyka - Watchtower
And the Ante-Nicene Fathers Email Michael
at: mpartyka@tx.rr.com
CHAPTER 2: HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
TAUGHT BY EARLY CHRISTIANS
“DID the early Christians teach the Trinity? Note
the following comments by historians and theologians:... ‘At
first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian…It was
not so in the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages, as reflected
in the N[ew] T[estament] and other early Christian writings.’—Encyclopaedia
of Religion and Ethics.”—Should You Believe
in the Trinity?, pp. 6-7 |
The following is the complete quote from this encyclopedia in
context:
“Economic and essential trinity.—(a)
The transition from the Trinity of
experience to the Trinity of dogma
is describable in other terms as the transition from the economic
or dispensational Trinity (tropoV apokaluyewV) to
the essential, immanent, or ontological Trinity
(tropoV uparxewV). At first the Christian faith was not
Trinitarian in the strictly ontological reference.
It was not so in the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages, as
reflected in the NT and other early Christian writings….It
should be observed that there is no real cleavage
or antithesis between the doctrines of the economic
and the essential Trinity, and naturally
so. The Triunity represents the effort to think out
the Trinity, and so to afford it a reasonable basis.”
—Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, vol.
12, p. 461
What this scholar is basically saying is that while the early
Christians had a rudimentary understanding of the nature of the
Triune God as they experienced Him (“economic
or dispensational Trinity”) through His dealings with mankind
throughout the Old and New Testaments, it wasn’t until subsequent
centuries that they were more capable of articulating ontologically
their understanding of the Triune God through the formulation
of the Christian creeds (“ontological Trinity”). Indeed,
as this encyclopedia states, “there is no real...antithesis
between the doctrines of the economic [“Trinity
of experience”] and the essential Trinity [“Trinity
of dogma”]” as the “Triunity [“ontological”
or “essential” Trinity] represents the effort to think
out the Trinity, and so to afford it a reasonable basis.”
“WHAT
THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS TAUGHT”
“THE ante-Nicene Fathers were acknowledged to have
been leading religious teachers in the early centuries after
Christ’s birth. What they taught is of interest.”—Should
You Believe in the
Trinity? p. 7 |
In order to establish a basis for their existence,
every heretical group which claims to be “true Christianity”
asserts that Christianity as we know it today has become so apostate
and full of paganism that unless one disassociates himself from
his religion and joins their group, he cannot be saved. Note the
following statements found in various issues of The Watchtower:
“And while now the witness yet includes the invitation
to come to Jehovah’s organization for salvation....”—The
Watchtower, November 15, 1981, p. 21
“Unless we are in touch with this channel of
communication that God is using, we will not
progress along the road to life, no matter
how much Bible reading we do.” —The
Watchtower, December 1, 1981, p. 27
“Such thinking is an evidence of pride....If
we get to thinking that we know better than the organization,
we should ask ourselves: ‘Where did we learn Bible truth
in the first place? Would we know the way of the truth
if it had not been for guidance from the organization?
Really, can we get along without the direction of God’s
organization?’ No, we cannot!”
—The Watchtower, January 15, 1983, p. 27
While the Mormon church claims that their prophet Joseph Smith
was called to “restore” true Christianity to the earth
as it was uniquely revealed to Joseph through revelations and
visions, the Watchtower Society teaches that although the majority
of Christianity apostatized, Jehovah God has always sustained
a remnant of true followers on earth throughout the centuries.
Thus, the Watchtower Society maintains that their Governing Body
is comprised of members of this “remnant” class who
serve as God’s mouthpiece and “channel of communication”
to His people on earth. Endeavoring to validate their teaching
that the majority of Christianity apostatized, the Watchtower
Society seeks to find support for their doctrines in the teachings
of the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers.1. By claiming that these Fathers
taught Watchtower doctrine, the Society maintains that although
historic Christianity possessed pure doctrine at the time of the
apostles, within four centuries, Christianity adopted “pagan”
doctrines such as the doctrine of the Trinity. They then conclude,
“Thus, the testimony of the Bible and of history makes clear
that the Trinity was unknown throughout Biblical
times and for several centuries thereafter.”2.
Are these claims credible? Note the following Scriptural passages
which clearly articulate God’s preservation of the Church
throughout history:
“…I write so that you may know how one
ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the
church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.”—1
Timothy 3:15
“...upon this rock I will build My church; and
the gates of Hades shall not overpower it.” —Matthew
16:18
“to Him be the glory in the church
and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever.
Amen.” —Ephesians 3:21
“...I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that
you contend earnestly for the faith which was
once for all delivered to the saints.”
—Jude 3
With this assurance of protection, how could the Church have
apostatized to the point of becoming pagan and needing to be restored?
How could the Church which is “the pillar and support of
truth” have crumbled, when Jesus promised that the gates
of Hades would “not overpower it”? If the church truly
apostatized, how could it have given glory to God throughout “all
generations”? Due to the fact that it was in response to
heresy that many doctrines of Christianity were formulated into
creeds, the doctrine of the Trinity was not officially formulated
until the fourth century. However, this does not in the least
imply that this doctrine was not understood or taught prior to
this time. Contrary to the Watchtower Society’s claims,
the Ante-Nicene Fathers did uphold Trinitarian
doctrine as is clearly revealed in their writings.
IGNATIUS
(30-107 A.D.)
Although the Society’s brochure on the Trinity
does not reference Ignatius, he studied under the Apostle John
and was acquainted with other apostles who had seen Jesus. As
a martyr who was executed for his faith Christ, Ignatius was a
fervent follower of Jesus Christ and wrote four epistles to the
Ephesians just prior to his execution at Rome on December 20th,
A.D. 107. Therefore, Ignatius’ testimony on this issue is
worth investigation:
“Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church
which is at Ephesus, in Asia…predestinated before the
beginning of time…and elected through the true passion
by the will of the Father, and Jesus Christ, our God….Being
the followers of God, and stirring up yourselves by
the blood of God, ye have perfectly accomplished the
work which was beseeming to you….There is one
Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made
and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death;
both of Mary and of God; first possible and then impossible,
— even Jesus Christ our Lord.”
—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, pp. 49, 52 3.
These statements by Ignatius provide ample evidence that the
concept of the Deity of Christ was well-known and accepted by
the apostles and the early Church, and therefore cannot be of
pagan origin. We will now turn our attention to the other Ante-Nicene
Fathers that the Watchtower Society references in their brochure.
JUSTIN
MARTYR (165 A.D.)
The Watchtower’s brochure states that Justin
Martyr “called the prehuman Jesus a created angel who is
‘other than the God who made all things.’ ”4.
However, far from teaching that Jesus is “a created angel,”
Justin Martyr actually taught that Christ is “the Angel
of God” who conversed with Moses out of the burning bush
and revealed Himself as the Jehovah God saying, “I am the
God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and
the God of Jacob.…I AM WHO I AM.”5. Justin Martyr also
understood the Scriptural term “first-begotten” of
God to mean that Christ is of the same nature as God the Father.
Note the following excerpts taken from his writings:
“For at that juncture, when Moses was ordered to go down
into Egypt...our Christ conversed with him under the appearance
of fire from a bush....‘And the Angel of God spake to
Moses, in a flame of fire out of the bush, and said, I am that
I am, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob,
the God of thy fathers….’...the Father of the universe
has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of
God, is even God. And of old He appeared in the shape
of fire and in the likeness of an angel to Moses and to the
other prophets....in order to prove that Christ is called
both God and Lord of hosts....Moreover, in the diapsalm
of the forty-sixth Psalm, reference is thus made to Christ:
‘God went up with a shout....’ And Trypho said,
‘…For you utter many blasphemies, in that
you seek to persuade us that this crucified man was with Moses
and Aaron, and spoke to them in the pillar of the cloud…and
ought to be worshipped.’…And Trypho said,
‘We have heard what you think of these matters.…For
when you say that this Christ existed as God before
the ages…this [assertion] appears to me to be
not merely paradoxical, but also foolish.’ ”—The
Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, pp. 184, 212, 213, 219
IRENAEUS
(200 A.D.)
The Society claims that Irenaeus “said that
the prehuman Jesus had a separate existence from God and was inferior
to him. He showed that Jesus is not equal to the ‘One true
and only God,’ who is ‘supreme over all, and besides
whom there is no other.’ ”6. This assertion on the part
of the Watchtower Society is deceitful because Irenaeus did not
contrast Christ with the “One true and only God” but
actually contrasted the true God with the lesser gods of Gnosticism.
In reality, Irenaeus taught the following concerning Christ:
“Very properly, then, did he say, ‘In
the beginning was the Word,’ for He was in the Son; ‘and
the Word was with God,’ for He was the beginning; ‘and
the Word was God,’ of course, for that which is
begotten of God is God.”—The Ante-Nicene
Fathers, vol. 1, p. 328
CLEMENT
OF ALEXANDRIA (215 A.D.)
The Society’s booklet declares that Clement
“called Jesus in his prehuman existence ‘a creature’....He
said that the Son ‘is next to the only omnipotent Father’
but not equal to him.”7. This assertion is
not only erroneous but is quite deceitful, for Clement actually
taught the opposite of what the Society insinuates. Note the following
excerpts taken from Clement’s writings which not only reveal
the deception of the Society claims, but also the fact that as
far back as the second century, the early Church Fathers articulated
and defended the concept of the Trinity:
“...the Divine Word, He that is truly most manifest
Deity, He that is made equal to the Lord of the universe;
because He was His Son, and the Word was in God....I
understand nothing else than the Holy Trinity to be meant;
for the third is the Holy Spirit, and the Son is the second,
by whom all things were made according to the will of the Father.…There
was, then, a Word importing an unbeginning eternity;
as also the Word itself, that is, the Son of God, who being,
by equality of substance, one with the Father,
is eternal and uncreate.”—The
Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2, pp. 202, 468, 574
TERTULLIAN
(230 A.D.)
The Trinity brochure states that Tertullian “taught
the supremacy of God. He observed: ‘The Father is different
from the Son (another), as he is greater; as he who begets is
different from him who is begotten; he who sends, different from
him who is sent.’ He also said: ‘There was a time
when the Son was not....Before all things, God was alone.’
”8. Concerning this last statement, “there was a time
when the Son was not,” Robert Bowman comments:
“Actually. the expression ‘there was a time when
the Son was not’ was not used by Tertullian himself.
Rather, this was an expression used by a modern scholar to summarize
a statement made by Tertullian, who argued that God was always
God, but not always Father of the Son: ‘For He could not
have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a judge previous
to sin.’ Since elsewhere Tertullian makes clear that he
regard the person of the Son as eternal, in this statement
Tertullian is probably asserting that the title of ‘Son’
did not apply to the second person of the Trinity until he began
to relate to the ‘Father’ as a ‘Son’
in the work of creation.”—Why You Should Believe
in the Trinity, 1989, p. 31
In his writings, Tertullian was very explicit in his articulation
of the doctrine of the Trinity:
“He is the Son of God, and is called God from
unity of substance with God….so, too, that
which has come forth out of God is at once God and the Son of
God, and the two are one. In this way also, as He is
Spirit of Spirit and God of God, He is made a second in manner
of existence—in position, not in nature….and
made flesh in her womb, is in His birth God and man
united.…Thus does He make Him equal
to Him.…I testify that the Father, and the Son,
and the Spirit are inseparable from each other….they
contend for the identity of the Father and Son and Spirit, that
it is not by way of diversity that the Son differs from the
Father, but by distribution: it is not by division that
He is different, but by distinction; because the Father
is not the same as the Son, since they differ one from the other
in the mode of their being….when all the Scriptures
attest the clear existence of, and distinction in, (the Persons
of) the Trinity….In what sense, however, you
ought to understand Him to be another, I have already explained,
on the ground of Personality, not of Substance—in
the way of distinction, not of division. But although
I must everywhere hold one only substance in three coherent
and inseparable (Persons)….”—The
Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, pp. 34-35, 601, 603, 606-607
HIPPOLYTUS
(235 A.D.)
The Society claims that Hippolytus “said that
God is ‘the one God, the first and the only One, the Maker
and Lord of all,’ who ‘had nothing co-equal [of equal
age] with him...But he was One, alone by himself; who willing
it, called into being what had no being before,’ such as
the created prehuman Jesus.”9. Here again, when one examines
what Hippolytus actually taught, one uncovers another example
where the Society misrepresents the facts. Note the following
statements found in Hippolytus’ writings:
“God, subsisting alone, and having nothing contemporaneous
with Himself, determined to create the world....Beside Him there
was nothing; but He, while existing alone, yet existed
in plurality....And thus there appeared another beside
Himself. But when I say another, I do not mean that
there are two Gods....Thus, then, these too, though
they wish it not, fall in with the truth, and admit that one
God made all things....For Christ is the God
above all.....He who is over all is God;
for thus He speaks boldly, ‘All things are delivered unto
me of my Father.’ He who is over all, God blessed, has
been born; and having been made man, He is (yet) God
for ever....And well has he named Christ the Almighty.”—The
Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5, pp. 227, 153, 225
ORIGEN
(250 A.D.)
The Society states that Origen taught “‘the
Father and Son are two substances...two things as to their essence,’
and that ‘compared with the Father, [the Son] is a very
small light.’ ”10. While it is true that Origen was not
orthodox on all his teachings about the Trinity and was eventually
regarded by the Church as a heretic (although this was not on
the basis of his view of the Trinity), he did teach certain aspects
of the Trinity.
“This is most clearly pointed out by the Apostle Paul,
when demonstrating that the power of the Trinity
is one and the same....From which it most clearly follows that
there is no difference in the Trinity, but
that which is called the gift of the Spirit is made known through
the Son, and operated by God the Father....Having made these
declarations regarding the Unity of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit....And who else
is able to save and conduct the soul of man to the God of all
things, save God the Word...inasmuch as He was the Word,
and was with God, and was God?”—The
Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 4, pp. 255, 604
Concerning Origen’s orthodox and unorthodox views of the
Trinity, Robert Bowman comments:
“…Origen was unorthodox in other aspects of his
teaching on the Trinity. He tended to view the three persons
more or less as three Gods, though without ever putting it just
so, and (inconsistently) held that the Son and Spirit, though
far superior beings to any creatures, were inferior to the Father.
He thus also denied that worship or prayer should be addressed
to the Son or the Spirit. In sum, Origen’s view
of God had similarities both to orthodox trinitarianism and
to the JWs’ doctrine of God. Unlike the Witnesses,
Origen believed that the Son was eternal and uncreated, and
he definitely regarded the Spirit as a person. But, like the
Witnesses, he regarded the Son as a second, inferior God next
to Almighty God.”—Why You Should Believe in
the Trinity, 1989, p. 34
THE
COUNCIL OF NICAEA
“AT THIS point you might ask: ‘If the Trinity
is not a Biblical teaching, how did it become a doctrine of
Christendom?’ Many think that it was formulated at the
Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E. That is not totally correct,
however. The Council of Nicaea did assert that Christ was
of the same substance as God, which laid the groundwork for
later Trinitarian theology. But it did not establish
the Trinity, for at that council there was no mention of the
holy spirit as the third person of a triune Godhead.”—Should
You Believe in the Trinity?, p. 7 |
Amid the fires of debate generated on account of the
heresy of Arius spreading within Constantine’s empire, on
June 19, 325 A.D., the Council of Nicaea began with Eusebius of
Caesarea the “first church historian” recording the
events. The issue of debate focused on the person of Christ and
His relationship to God the Father. Around 318 A.D., Arius began
teaching that Jesus is a created being who is of a different substance
(Greek: heteroousios) than the Father. Prior to this,
as already noted in the discussion on the Ante-Nicene Fathers,
Christians held to the view that God is a Trinity who consists
of three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Arius’
heresy struck at the very heart of this doctrine; for by insisting
that Jesus had to be created, he was teaching that Jesus is not
the one true God, but is rather an inferior god who is in some
sense only “divine.”
THREE
VIEWS OF CHRIST DISCUSSED AT THE COUNCIL
DOCTRINE |
LEADERS |
VIEW OF CHRIST |
| Arianism |
Arius |
Different substance as the Father—heteroousios |
| Orthodox |
Alexander, bishop of Alexandria;
Hosius, bishop of Cordova;
Athanasius, who eventually became bishop of Alexandria |
Same susbance as the Father—homoousios |
| Eusebian |
Eusebius of Caesarea |
Similar substance as the Father—homoiousios |
Fearing that the term homoousios could be
misunderstood to advocate the heresy of modalism (promoted in
earlier centuries by Sabellius and others who taught that Jesus
and the Father are the same person), Eusebius and his proponents
favored the term homoiousios feeling that this would
avoid the heresy of Sabellius and at the same time refute Arianism.
As the Council proceeded, each group shared its views, seeking
to come to an agreement on what Scripture teaches and how to best
communicate this truth. As the Orthodox group expressed their
position that by using the term homoousios, they were
not compromising the teaching of the distinctions in the persons
of the Trinity, but were rather endeavoring to defend the Deity
of the persons, the Council eventually came to an agreement with
all but Arius and two bishops signing the following creed:
“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.…”11.
The Watchtower Society argues that the doctrine of the Trinity
was not totally formulated at the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.,
because there was no mention of the Holy Spirit at this council.
While it is true that the person of the Holy Spirit was not discussed
at this time, the council did affirm Trinitarian doctrine not
only by the fact that it acknowledged that Christ is of the same
substance as the Father, but the Nicene Creed12. states: “I
believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker
of heaven and earth...And in one Lord Jesus Christ.…And
I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver
of Life.…”13. The reason the person of the Holy Spirit
was not discussed at the Nicene Council is due to the fact that
the issue of controversy concerned the Son—not the Holy
Spirit.
“CONSTANTINE’S
ROLE AT NICAEA”
“Constantine was not a Christian. Supposedly, he converted
later in life, but he was not baptized until he lay
dying. Regarding him, Henry Chadwick says in The
Early Church: ‘Constantine, like his father, worshipped
the Unconquered Sun;...his conversion should not be interpreted
as an inward experience of grace...It was a military matter.’
”—Should You Believe in the Trinity?,
p. 8 |
The Society’s Trinity brochure twists the quotes
from Chadwick’s book The Early Church in order
to give the impression that he was teaching that Constantine was
not a Christian. Note the context from which these quotes are
derived:
“Constantine, like his father, worshipped the Unconquered
Sun; [page 122] ...The conversion of Constantine marks a
turning-point in the history of the Church and of Europe. [page
125] …But if his conversion should
not be interpreted as an inward experience of grace, neither
was it a cynical act of Machiavellian cunning. It was a military
matter. His comprehension of Christian doctrine was never very
clear, but he was sure that victory in battle lay in the gift
of the God of the Christians....He was not baptized until
he lay dying in 337, but this implies no doubt about
his Christian belief. It was common at this time (and
continued so until about A.D. 400) to postpone baptism
to the end of one’s life, especially if one’s
duty as an official included torture and execution of criminals.
Part of the reason for postponement lay in the seriousness with
which the responsibilities of baptism were taken. Constantine
favoured Christianity among the many religions of his subjects,
but did not make it the official or ‘established’
religion of the empire.”—The Early Church,
pp. 122, 125, 127
It appears that Constantine “worshipped the Unconquered
Sun” prior to his conversion.14. Also, in context, it seems
like Chadwick felt that Constantine’s conversion was genuine.
However, he admits that “if” Constantine’s conversion
was not genuine, it should be interpreted as “a military
matter.” Nevertheless, the fact that Constantine was not
baptized until the end of his life “implies no doubt about
his Christian belief. It was common...to postpone baptism to the
end of one’s life.” While it is true that Constantine
was the one who officially called the Nicene Council, he did not
force his views upon the Council. This can be seen by his willingness
(in subsequent years) to abandon the Nicene position in order
to enhance his political position. He was not a theologian, but
was primarily interested in unity, for he recognized how disunity
on these issues threatened his empire.
Although the Council of Nicaea rejected Arianism, this was by
no means the end of controversy. For nearly five decades from
332-381, Arianism seemed to reign. Emperors generally preferred
Arianism (which taught that Jesus was a “divine” creature)
as the more attractive religious system due to the fact that it
advocated that a creature could be a god, and they felt it was
easier to rule if their subjects thought of them as being somewhat
“divine.”
Constantine’s successor, his second son Constantius, ruled
the East and allowed Arianism to flourish under his rulership.
Eusebius of Nicomedia, Arians and semi-Arians endeavored to overturn
Nicaea. Under Constantius, regional councils met at Ariminum,
Seleucia, and Sirmium, forcing many leaders to subscribe to Arian
and semi-Arian creeds. Athanasius who became bishop of
Alexandria shortly after the Council of Nicaea was removed from
his position five times, and even Hosius who was now nearly 100
years old, was threatened. Despite pressure to compromise,
Athanasius continued to fight, and remained firm in his conviction
that Scripture should be regarded as the supreme authority; thus,
giving rise to the phrase, “Athanasius contra mundum—Athanasius
against the world.” Although Athanasius did not write the
Athanasian creed, it was named after him due to his perseverance
and uncompromised stance on the issue of the Deity of Christ.
Finally at the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D., the Trinity
was reaffirmed, and (contrary to the claims of the Watchtower’s
Trinity brochure), from this point on throughout history, it has
been widely accepted. Soon after this council, Arianism died out
with internal fighting among its advocators, and throughout subsequent
years, the doctrine of the Trinity continued to be clarified as
it was codified in creeds.15. As The Encyclopedia Americana notes:
“The full development of Trinitarianism
took place in the West, in the Scholasticism of the Middle Ages,
when an explanation was undertaken in terms of philosophy and
psychology.…”16.
Apostasy Foretold
“THIS disreputable history of the Trinity fits in
with what Jesus and his apostles foretold would follow their
time.…Accurate knowledge of God brings great relief.
It frees us from teachings that are in conflict with God’s
Word and from organizations that have apostatized….By
honoring God as supreme and worshiping him on his terms,
we can avoid the judgment that he will soon bring on apostate
Christendom.”—Should You Believe
in the Trinity?, pp. 9, 31 |
As foretold in the Scriptures, throughout history as well as
in our day, there are groups of people who were at one time considered
within the perimeters of Biblical Christianity but have subsequently
turned away from the truths found in God’s Word and have
followed after heretical teachers who teach what these people
want to hear.17. Nevertheless, simply because some
of the people of Christianity have turned away into heresy, this
does not imply that Christianity as a whole has become apostate.
As was noted previously, Jesus and his apostles foretold that
the Church would endure and give glory to God “throughout
all ages.” Thus, one must conclude that Christianity could
not have become apostate as the Watchtower booklet asserts. Notice
that at 1 Timothy 4:1 where Paul speaks of an apostasy that is
to come in the last days, he states that “some,” not
all, will fall away.
 NEXT CHAPTER
============
1. i.e., the Church Fathers who lived prior to the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.
2. Should You Believe in the Trinity?, p. 7
3. The Ante-Nicene Fathers —Translation of The Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325, edited by Rev. Alexander Roberts, D.D., and James Donaldson, LL.D. (WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI)
4. Should You Believe in the Trinity?, p. 7
5. Exodus 3:6, 14
6. Should You Believe in the Trinity?, p. 7
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid.
11. Quoted in “What Really Happened At Nicea?” by James R. White, Christian Research Journal, July-August 1997, pp. 28-34
12. Although the Nicene Creed was formulated at the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D., it was named after the Council of Nicaea due to the groundwork laid at this council for the formulation of this creed.
13. Quoted in Christianity In Crisis, by Hank Hanegraaf, 1993, (Harvest House Publishers, Eugene, OR), p. 375
14. Note page 122 in Chadwick’s book appears before his conversion on page 125.
15. For more information on the Council of Nicaea, see the July-August 1997 issue of the Christian Research Journal article entitled “What Really Happened At Nicea?” by James R. White. A transcript of this article may be obtained by writing to the Christian Research Institute at: P.O. Box 7000, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688.
16. The Encyclopedia Americana, vol. 27, p. 117
17. See 2 Timothy 4:3-4 |
