Even more specific is this passage, rich with theological meaning
and content:
For as God lives, and the Lord Jesus Christ lives, and the Holy
Spirit, who are the faith and hope of the chosen ones-the one
who in humility of mind, with extended gentleness, without regret
has done the ordinances and commandments given by God, this
one will be enrolled and given a name among the number of the
saved through Jesus Christ, through whom is the glory unto Him
for ever and ever, amen. (58)
Just as in the New Testament, the intimate cooperation of the Father, Son, and Spirit (here using the common Trinitarian names used
by Paul, God, Lord, and Spirit) in the work of salvation is prevalent
in Clement's thinking. He describes the three persons as the "faith and
hope of the chosen ones," a phrase that would make no sense outside
of a belief in the full deity of all three. It would be blasphemous to
speak of God, Michael, and some other lesser creature as the faith and
hope of the elect.
IGNATIUS
The first major Christian writer to produce multiple letters of theological interest is Ignatius, bishop of Antioch (d. 107). While on his
way to his martyrdom in Rome, Ignatius wrote a series of letters to
various churches. While it was not his intention to produce a systematic theology by so doing, he did give us some very clear statements
regarding important doctrinal beliefs of the early church. Most important for our purposes is his crystalline testimony to the deity of
Christ. While some have attempted to hide his words,' they speak with
great clarity and force. He speaks easily of Christ as God, borrowing
from the apostle John (1:1; 20:28). Tradition says Ignatius knew John,
which might explain the similarity of language. Yet there is no hint of
polytheism (a belief in more than one God), and the Father is clearly
distinguished from the Son and the Spirit. Notice how Ignatius begins
his letter to the Ephesians:
Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to her who has been
blessed in greatness through the fulness of God the Father, ordained before time to be always resulting in permanent glory, unchangeably united and chosen in true passion, by the will of the
Father and of Jesus Christ, our God, to the church which is in Ephesus of Asia, worthy of felicitation: abundant greetings in Jesus
Christ and in blameless joy. (Ephesians 1)"
Ignatius speaks of such items as the conception of Christ and His
deity as "givens," not explaining these beliefs, but instead viewing them
as the New Testament writers did: as common convictions of those to
whom he was writing. In this citation from his epistle to the Ephesians,
Ignatius not only directly calls Jesus Christ "our God,"' but note the
conjunction of the three persons:
My spirit is but an offscouring of the cross, which is a scandal
to the unbelieving, but to us it is salvation and life eternal. Where
is the wise man? Where is the disputer? Where is the boasting of
those who are called understanding? For our God, Jesus the Christ,
was conceived by Mary according to a dispensation of God, from The King of Israel is destroyed by an Israelite hand.
the seed of David, yes, but of the Holy Spirit as well. (Ephesians
18)
Lest someone think that for Ignatius "our God" is something less
than "God" himself, note these words concerning the Incarnation:
... the ancient kingdom was utterly destroyed when God appeared in the likeness of man unto newness of everlasting life.
(Ephesians 19)
Ignatius shows a true Trinitarian understanding of the nature of
God when he can speak of the Father, the Son, and then of Jesus Christ
as God. There is no confusion of the persons, just a clear recognition
and repeated assertion of the deity of Christ:
Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to her that has found
mercy in the majesty of the Most High Father and of Jesus Christ
His only Son; to the church that is beloved and enlightened
through the will of Him who willed all things that exist, by faith
and love toward Jesus Christ our God; even to her that has the presidency in the country of the region of the Romans. (Romans 1)
That the term "God" is not merely a synonym for the Father for
Ignatius is seen in this passage:
For our God Jesus Christ, being in the Father, is more plainly
seen. The work is not of persuasiveness, but Christianity is a thing
of might, whenever it is hated by the world. (Romans 3)
Ignatius can call Jesus God, and then the Son of God, in the same
context without any difficulty:
I glorify Jesus Christ the God who gave to you such wisdom, for
I know that you are fully established in immovable faith, just as if
you have been nailed to the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ, both in
flesh and in spirit, firmly established in love in the blood of Christ,
completely persuaded with reference to our Lord that He is truly
of the race of David according to the flesh, but the Son of God according to God's will and power, truly born from a virgin, having
been baptized by John in order to by Him fulfill all righteousness.
(Smyrneans 1)
The depth of Ignatius' doctrine of Christ demonstrates that such
high views did not develop over time but are very primitive. That is
not to say that others did not have less developed views, but that high
views of Christ in regard to His deity, His natures, etc., can be found
as early in the record as any other belief. Note what he wrote to
Polycarp:
Await the One who is above every season, the Eternal, the Invisible, the One who for our sake became visible, the Untouched,
the Impassible, who for our sake suffered, who endured in every
way for our sake. (Polycarp 3)
Here Ignatius describes the Son as eternal, invisible, impalpable,
and impassible. One is reminded of Paul's words to Timothy (1:17):
Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be
honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.
Surely Ignatius had no problem in describing the Son in this way.
And the height of his Christology can be seen in this incredible description of Jesus Christ:
There is one physician, of flesh and of spirit, generate and ingenerate, God in man, true life in death, both from Mary and from
God, first passible and then impassible, Jesus Christ our Lord.
(Ephesians 7)
One could well say that even fifth-century Trinitarian thought does
not represent any substantial advancement beyond the concepts expressed here. Incarnation, the two natures of Christ-all clearly a part
of the theology of the bishop from Antioch, the "birthplace" of Christianity.
It is not overly surprising, then, to find Trinitarian passages, presenting all three persons associated together in the work of salvation, in Ignatius as well. One example will suffice:
... you being stones of a temple, prepared before as a building of
God the Father, being raised up to the heights through the mechanism of Jesus Christ, which is the cross, and using as a rope the
Holy Spirit... (Ephesians 9)
There is certainly nothing in Ignatius that can offer much solace
to those who wish to deny the deity of Christ or present some aberrant
view of the doctrine of God. And the fundamental elements of the
Trinity-the three pillars of monotheism, the existence of three persons, and the deity of Christ and the Spirit-can easily be traced
through his writings, providing a vitally important link between the
New Testament writings and the first post-apostolic writings of the
church.
MELITO OF SARDIS
Melito, bishop of Sardis, died around the year A.D. 180. Until recently, few students of church history paid much attention to him. One
of the reasons might be that he ended up on the "wrong side" of the
ancient debate over how to determine the date of Easter. Only recently
a sermon on the Passover was found, penned by Melito. It provides us
with a tremendous insight into the theology of the late second century.
I reproduce here just one section, which requires no commentary, only
a hearty "Amen!":
And so he was lifted up upon a tree and an inscription was
attached indicating who was being killed. Who was it? It is a grievous thing to tell, but a most fearful thing to refrain from telling.
But listen, as you tremble before 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 a tree.
The Sovereign is insulted.
God is murdered.
This is the One who made the heavens and the earth,
and formed mankind in the beginning,
The One proclaimed by the Law and the Prophets,
The One enfleshed in a virgin,
The One hanged on a tree,
The One buried in the earth,
The One raised from the dead
and who went up into the heights of heaven,
The One sitting at the right hand of the Father,
The One having all authority to judge and save,
Through Whom the Father made the things which exist from
the beginning of time.
This One is "the Alpha and the Omega,"
This One is "the beginning and the end"
... the beginning indescribable and the end
incomprehensible.
This One is the Christ.
This One is the King.
This One is Jesus.
This One is the Leader.
This One is the Lord.
This One is the One who rose from the dead.
This One is the One sitting on the right hand of the Father.
He bears the Father and is borne by the Father.
"To him be the glory and the power forever. Amen."
The deity of Christ, His two natures, His virgin birth, His being
the Creator, His distinction from the Father-all part and parcel of the
preaching of the bishop of Sardis near the end of the second century.
THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA
It is repeated by believer and even nonbeliever alike around the
world. The Nicene Creed stands either for truth or for error for many
millions of people. Here is what it says:6
We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, the maker of all things visible and invisible.
And we believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, the unique Son, 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' with the Father, by
Whom all things were made, whether things in heaven and things
in earth, Who for us men and for our salvation came down and
became incarnate, becoming man, suffered and rose again the
third day, ascended into the heavens, and will come again to judge
the living and the dead.
And we believe in the Holy Spirit.
But for those who say "There was a time when He was not,"y
and "Before He was begotten He was not," and "He was made of
things that were not,"," or who assert that He is of a different substance or essence [from the Father], or that He is created or subject
to change or alterable-the Catholic Church anathematizes them.
These words were the result of the greatest church council ever
convened-not in size, but in importance. Beginning on June 19, 325,
around 300 bishops, almost all from the Eastern portion of the Roman
empire, met and considered the issue of the deity of Christ. Many bore
the scars of years of persecution that had only recently ended (A.D.
313). They had been willing to lay down their lives for the gospel of
Christ, and now they were called upon to deal with a division in the
church brought on by the teachings of a man named Arius.
A presbyter in a suburb of Alexandria, Egypt, Arius is said by historians to have been a good communicator-a slick speaker who could
convince by his speech and personality. About seven years prior to Nicaea, Arius began to publicly disagree with his bishop, Alexander, because Alexander was teaching that the Son of God had eternally existed. Instead, Arius insisted, "There was a time when the Son was not."
Christ, to Arius, was a highly exalted, yet created, being. Alexander
attempted to deal with the issue locally, and Arius was condemned by
a local synod in 321. But he simply moved elsewhere and continued
to teach and preach.
Arianism, as it came to be known, disturbed the newly found peace of the Christian church. Rather than persecution from outside,
now strife from within occupied the energies of believers. The
Roman Emperor Constantine learned of the battle. Seeking a unified
empire, and fearing the results a split of the Christian church could
bring, Constantine moved to encourage reconciliation and resolution. Failing this, he called a council" to meet at Nicaea in the summer of 325.
WHO BELIEVED WHAT
Hindsight is always 20/20, as they say, and it allows us to conveniently divide up the participants in the council in a way that
might well make it look a little more simple than it was. Basically,
there were three groups: the "different substance" party (Arius and
his followers), the "same substance" party (Alexander, Hosius), and
the "similar substance" party (Eusebius). The debate centered
around whether Jesus is of the same substance as the Father (fully
divine), a different substance (a created being, a creature), or a similar substance. The last option might sound like those holding to it
were trying to introduce a second God, but that would be a misunderstanding. Instead, the "of a similar substance" group should
be seen as a subset of the "same substance" group. The reason they
hesitated to speak of Christ being "of the same substance as the Father" was that they feared this could be understood to teach an even
older heresy that they detested as much as Arianism: modalism, the
idea that Jesus is the Father. That is, modalists said the Father, Son,
and Spirit were just three modes of being, and they denied that there
were three coequal and coeternal persons. Many in the East had
fought long and hard against modalism, so they were hesitant to affirm anything in the council that could be used by the very people
they had been struggling against for generations. It took time to convince the "similar substance" group that their position could not be
used to expose the errors of Arius and his followers, and that they
were not, by accepting the statement that the Son is of the same substance as the Father, endorsing or supporting modalism.