Turkey-Syria Study Trip
Notes assembled[1]
or written by Dr. Joseph B. Fuiten
From February 28 to
The trip was wonderful. With all the prayers of our congregation,
everything went incredibly smoothly. We
felt the Lord’s presence and protection all along the way.
I arranged these notes in roughly the same schedule
that we followed on the trip. I know
that most people will never be able to take this kind of a trip. I hope the extensive pictures and notes will
make it feel almost like being there.
More general reference notes are in the back of the
document. The notes are laid out with
sections corresponding to the main sites that we will be visiting. They are mostly in the order we will be
visiting. I have borrowed liberally from
many different sites which I have tried to footnote. If anyone finds a section
that should be footnoted but is not, please let me know so I can give all
credit where it is due.
My purpose in making this trip was two-fold. First, I wanted to continue my efforts to
visit all the key places of the Bible before I die. When it comes to understanding the Bible,
there is nothing quite like seeing the places through your own eyes. Second, I wanted to follow the life of
Paul. I have come to believe that the
world he faced was actually quite like the world I face today. There are lots of things to be learned from
the past that will help us in the future.
For Linda’s part, she went to be with me.
I am very appreciative to the congregation of
I traveled by Northwest Air and KLM from
When we were designing the Chapel of the
Resurrection, I originally wanted a smaller version of this church. However, the design was too difficult to
replicate and the height would not have been allowed by Bothell. That’s another reason why I like Hagia
Sophia. It reminds me of the day when
Christians ran the government and the church got the consideration it deserves.
We traveled in the dead of winter and
Here was my schedule:
February 27th, Leave Seattle on Wednesday afternoon.
February 28th, Arrive in the afternoon and
overnight in
March 1, visit
March 2, leave early for Nicea and drive hard to reach
March 3, Sunday, tour Iconium, Derbe, Lystra, and Pisidian Antioch, overnight in Konya.
March 4, Drive to
March 5, Tour
March 6, Drive to Silifke and board Ferry for
March 7, Tour
March 8, To
March 9, to
March 10, Sunday church in
March 11, Tour Aleppo, go to San Simeon,
March 12, Travel to
March 13, Travel to
March 14, Visit
March 15, Visit Damascus, back to
March 16, To
March 17, Worship in Tarsus, then travel to Antalya Antalya
March 18, Travel to
March 19, Visit Ephesus and then to Dinizli and overnight in Dinizli.
March 20, Visit Dinizli area, the
March 21, Up the coast to
March 22, Return to
March 23, Saturday, Return to
If anyone looks at this schedule as one to copy I should tell you that I probably overreached on this schedule. The roads were not as good as I had hoped so most of the drives took longer than expected. As a result we spent way too much time in the car getting from place to place. On the other hand, we did cover a lot of ground. The route probably would not work very well for a tour group traveling by bus, but I was happy.
The map above came from http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/jesusandwomen/maps.stm
Iznik, Historical Nicea
City of Doctrine
The
trip from
Nicea is best known in Christian
history as host to the First Ecumenical Council in 325 AD. It was called by Emperor Constantine to
settle questions related to the divinity of Christ. It resulted in the Nicean Creed that codified
the orthodox view regarding Jesus Christ.
They didn’t invent the doctrine there but demonstrated that the divinity
of Jesus was something that had been preached from the beginning.
Even though it was an important Roman and Byzantine city, it fell to the Seljuks in 1078 and ultimately to the Ottomans in 1331. When Constantinople was sacked and robbed by the Fourth Crusade in 1204, Nicea became one competitor for capitol of the empire. The picture shows the old basilica from ancient Nicea.
Nicea
is located on the eastern end of Lake Iznik.
Its one time ocean access has changed.
The marshy edges to the lake tell the story of silt filling up the
waterways.
The city’s western wall came to the
water’s edge. In its prime, the wall was
about 2 ½ miles long, about 30 feet high, and had over a hundred towers. A double ditch outside the walls added
another layer of protection. The wall
was penetrated in four places: the Istanbul Gate (on the northern side), the
Lefke Gate (on the eastern side), and Yenisehir Gate (on the southern). In addition, gates in the western wall gave
access to wharfs and jetties. The cities
gates and wall still stand. A portion of the city wall is shown. Even today, it
is still mainly bounded by the original Roman walls.
In the town center the ruins of the St.
Sophia Cathedral, the place
of the first Ecumenical Council of 325, evoke images of convening bishops and
clergy. I sat in the chair reserved for
the leading Bishop, or maybe even the Emperor Constantine. The little church could handle maybe 300
people when seated or 600 standing. I am
sitting on the platform (technically it is the apse but we call it the
platform.) About three weeks later I visited the church at Myra where St.
Nicholas (the man we know as Santa Claus) was the Pastor. He had been a participant in the Council at
Nicea. I noted that his little church
was almost a copy of the one at Nicea.
His area for priests is shown above as well. Notice how much like the one at Nicea it
is. I can imagine as Pastor Nicholas
joined in debating about the nature of Christ at Nicea he was also thinking
that this was exactly the kind of church he wanted to build when he got home to
Myra. The two churches are almost carbon
copies of each other in both size and shape.
This picture shows the altar area in the
center with the seating area for the priests.
The rounded section is called the apse.
There were aisles on either side of the center section. The congregation
stood in those three sections. This was a common Roman design. In fact, many churches were built on this
pattern.
It is hard to
judge size from the picture, but the whole church, including the two side
aisles, is about equal to the two center sections of Cedar Park Assembly of
God. Thinking back, I estimate that
maybe it was 80 feet long and 60 feet wide.
Things were not very big in those days.
What those early churches lacked in size, they made up for in beauty.
At the entrance to the Nicean church is a
beautiful mosaic with figures representing Jesus and the saints. In the picture below, the mosaic is under the
glassed-in area. On the Church’s
northern wall was a fresco of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph.
The church was
also the site for the later council where Icons were finally approved for use
within the church under Empress Irene. That second council
Synod convened in the same church
in 787 AD during the iconoclastic period.
Following that council, objections to Iconography were no longer allowed and
the practice was no longer challenged within the Church.
Upon our arrival at the church we paid
the guy 1 million Lira to go in (about $0.75).
When we left he bolted the door and went to lunch.
WHAT REALLY HAPPENED AT
NICEA?
by James R. White[2]
(Pictures by Joe Fuiten)
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, an d
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 term homoousios 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 limited solely 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.13 The
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 insufficient
by 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,"25 Athanasius 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 the homoousion, 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.
Driving
Instructions
From
Iznik, go through Bozuyuk, Kutahya, Afyon, to Konya.
From
Iznik take road 150 east to 650. It is
about 30 KM or about 19 miles to 650.
Take
highway 650 south to Afyon. Its about
280 KM. or about 115 miles to Kutahya and another 60-72 miles to Afyon
At
Afyon, take highway 300 South/east toward Konya.
From Afyon it is about 93 Km/60 Miles to
Aksehir. .
At Aksehir take 695 south 28 km then right to
Yalvac, the location of ancient Pisidian Antioch
Paul's First Missionary
Journey
From
Perga to Pisidian Antioch
Traveling northward
from Perga to Pisidian Antioch, Saul and Barnabas followed the Roman road known
as the Via Sebaste. With the mountains looming in the distance, the 100-mile
journey took them about a week (traveling about 15 miles a day) and was
extremely dangerous. 
The
rough, mountainous passage, shown right, caused Antioch to be isolated since it
was the only way in and out of the city. (Were these mountains daunting to John
Mark, and the reason he chose not to continue?)
We, on the other hand, have arrived by car from the north. Along their
way they passed Egirdir Gölü (Egirdir Lake, shown below). Along our way we passed unending streams
of trucks.
Eventually,
after endless climbing for scores of miles, they arrived at Pisidian Antioch on
the 3,280 feet-high plain of the Anatolian plateau.(below, right). High, cool and dry, the city must have seemed
like an oasis to the ailing Saul.
Pisidian Antioch or
Antioch in Pisidia was an ancient city in Phrygia, located north-northeast of
Perga. According to written sources and archaeological finds, the city was
founded by Seleucus I Nicator in 280 BC, and was one of seventeen Antiochs he
named for his father Antiochus. The city stood at a junction of two main roads,
guarding the road access from the south, as well as the so called "high
road" from Ephesus to Syria. It was situated in the proximity of the
border of Pisidia and Phrygia and served the Seleucids as a border fortress up
until the defeat of Antiochus III by the Romans. This strategic importance
combined with its fertile lands meant that it was an important settlement in
the region. From coins minted around that time it is evident that the city rose
to a pinnacle of economic prosperity. The population of the city at that time
has been put at over one hundred thousand.
In
188 BC it was declared a free city and in 25 BC it became a Roman military
colony known as Colonia Caesarea Antiocheia. Its old name, however, was not
abandoned. Emperor Augustus designated it the capital of the Roman province of
Galatia[3] and three thousand
veterans from Rome were brought to settle there. These expatriate Romans
enjoyed full citizenship and the city flourished and enjoyed peace and
prosperity in the generation leading up to the visit by Paul and Barnabas. Of
all the other colonies cities such as Olbasa, Komama, Kremna, Parlais, and
Lystra, Pisidian Antioch was the oldest, largest and most Romanized. Its
districts were named after those of Rome, and the discovery of the important Latin
inscription known as the "Res Gestae" on the site illustrates the
importance attached to Pisidian Antioch as a sister city of Rome.
After the time of Paul
The city was razed by
the Arabs in the year 713, and although attempts were made to rebuild it, its
former splendor had gone never to return. Its walls were rebuilt to surround a
smaller area, and the deterioration
in quality of the building materials, is further evidence of decline. The city
can be traced up to the end of the 12th century AD, but was finally abandoned
entirely when the settlement of Yalvaç was established in the second half of
the 13th century. In those last years of its existence two important events put
Pisidian Antioch on the map of history once more. The first was the arrival of
the Crusader army, which took refuge here after its defeat by the Selçuks at
Eskisehir in 1097. The second was the battle of Miryakefalon between the
Byzantines and Turkish Selçuks, which took place just outside the city in 1176.
Walking
in Paul's footsteps--Pisidian Antioch:
The
remains of the Pisidian Antioch are located just over a half mile north of the
modern Turkish city of Yalvaç in the province of Isparta. The first excavations
were carried out in 1913-14 and 1924 by the archaeologists W. Ramsay and D. M.
Robinson, revealing settlement here since the Neolithic Age. Excavations were
resumed in 1979, and although only ten percent of the city has so far been
revealed, this once magnificent ancient capital city in the center of Anatolia
is a fascinating place to visit.
The
site of Pisidian Antioch
The city was set atop a precipice
described by Sir William Ramsey on his visit at the beginning of the 20th
century as "an oblong hill varying from 50 feet to 200 feet above the
plain, "nearly two miles in circumference. As the eastern, southern and
northern slopes of the hill are very steep, it is possible to approach the city
only from the west. However, the hilltop is not flat; indeed there are several
high-points on every side, giving the appearance of seven hills, like Rome. The
majority of buildings were constructed on the slopes of these small hills or in
the valleys. Within the fortification walls, the city is laid out along two
main axis, north-south and east-west, directions which intersect at a right
angle. Straight, narrow side-streets cut the main streets at right-angles. It
is interesting to note that this so-called Hippodamian street-system (a street
plan arranged on a rectangular grid) was skillfully adapted to the terrain. The
remains of many important buildings dating from the Roman and subsequent eras
have been revealed, including:
The foundations of the triple city
gate built as a monument commemorating the victory of the Roman emperor
Septimus Severus over the Parthians. Herod the Great built his Horodian also in
celebration of his victory over the Parthians just south of Jerusalem.
One the most important remains at the site of Pisidian Antioch is the aqueduct, shown here, that brought water from a spring in the foothills to meet the increasing demand for water during the Roman period. Dating to the 1st century AD, it ran for nearly 6 miles along the ridge to the north of the city. Constructed according to the conditions of the terrain, it led to a monumental fountain, the nymphaeum whose foundation is shown here, from where the water was distributed to about two-thirds of the city.
On the west side of the city are
the foundations of the synagogue where Saul gave his first recorded sermon. In
the 4th century AD the Church of St. Paul was built on the remains,
incorporating its southern wall. Although most of the walls have disappeared,
the superb mosaics and inscriptions which entirely cover the floor are worth
seeing. At the center of the mosaic are four Greek inscriptions giving the names
of people who made the mosaic floor and the names of priests and dedicators.
One of those mentioned is Optimus, a leader and bishop in the Antioch church
between 375-381 AD. It is significant that this is the only church in ancient
Anatolia built on the site of a synagogue.
We tend to think of the names of donors on a building as something new. In fact, in the Synagogue in which Jesus preached in Capernaum there was such an inscription. I have seen them in other locations as well.
The city had two town squares: The
Augusta Platea (Square of Augustus) was located at the very highest point of
the city and was connected to the lower Tiberia Platea (Square of Tiberius) by
a monumental staircase of twelve steps.
The Augusta Platea was the site of a temple built in honor of the
emperor Augustus, shown left. The foundation was carved out of the rock of the
hill. At the back of the temple was a two storied, semicircular portico, also
quarried out of the rock of the hill. Around 400 AD, the building was used as an
open-air church.
The theater was situated on an hill not far from the city center overlooking the city. It could accommodate 5,000 spectators and probably consisted of 26 rows of seats. The city's main east-west street ran through a tunnel beneath the south side of the seating area, an unusual feature that has not been observed elsewhere.
About 3 miles east of Yalvaç, atop Karakuyu Hill, is the sanctuary of the Anatolian moon god Men, whose symbol was the bull's head, and who was thought to grant abundant harvests. On nearby Limenia Island in Lake Egirdir is a temple of Artemis, rock tombs and St. Mary's Monastery. The Assyrian moon god was named Sin.
Paul preaches the Gospel in Pisidian
Antioch:
It has been suggested that Paul and
Barnabas originally aimed for Pisidian Antioch on the recommendation of Sergius
Paulus, the newly converted governor of Cyprus, because archaeology has shown
that his family had roots in the city. Excavations at the site of Antioch
uncovered an inscription referring to "Lucius Sergius Paulus the
younger," thought to be the son of the Cyprus governor.
Irregardless, the missionaries first took the Gospel message to the Jews of Antioch, as was standard procedure on this and all of Paul's subsequent missionary journeys. On the Sabbath they went to the synagogue. It was customary in synagogues throughout the empire to invite visiting Jews to address the congregation after the main part of the service: "After the reading from the Law and the Prophets, the synagogue rulers sent word to them, saying, 'Brothers, if you have a message of encouragement for the people, please speak'" (Acts 13:15).
Paul's audience included both Jews and
God-fearers--Gentiles who respected the Jewish religion but who had not fully
converted to it (circumcised). First, he gave them a brief history of Israel,
from the Exodus, to the entry into the Promised Land, the period of the
"judges," then the first kings, Saul followed by David, from whose
line God promised to send a Messiah who would bring salvation to the world.
Paul then announced that God had fulfilled this promise in Jesus whose coming
was foretold by John the Baptist.
In the second half of his sermon Paul
described the process by which Jesus was condemned and crucified, then
resurrected so that all believers, including those in Antioch, could have
eternal life.
Paul's message had a powerful effect on
his audience, and he was invited back for the next Sabbath. Over the following
week, word-of-mouth spread so that when the time came, the synagogue was
packed. However, the crowd included some orthodox Jews who tried to disprove
Paul's claims. After what was undoubtedly a heated debate, Paul and Barnabas
spoke out boldly: "We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you
reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to
the Gentiles. For this is what the Lord has commanded us: 'I have made you a
light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the
earth'" (Acts 13:46,47).
The Gentiles in the audience were elated with what they heard, and a congregation was formed. Paul's message also aroused hostility among a number of the Jews, although the reason is not specified. Most likely it was because they resented welcoming the Gentiles into the church as equals to themselves, "God's chosen people." In any case, they incited some of Antioch's influential citizens to have the missionaries expelled from the city. Shaking the dust from their feet--an expression of extreme contempt and a sign of that they would not have any further dealings with them--Paul and Barnabas departed for Iconium. However, as they headed out of town they were elated in the knowledge that the Holy Spirit had worked through them to bring new converts into the body of Christ. This account concludes with the statement, "And the disciples were filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 13:52). The photo shows the main road in the city.
Pisidian Antioch—Yalvac
Paul arrived in this city having landed at the coast and come inland
following his trip to Cyprus. From here
he started south, heading in the general direction of home.
Poised on the southern slopes of the Sultan Mountains in central west
Turkey, the ruins of Pisidian Antioch reach back to 200 B.C. when Seleucus I or
his son Antiochos I established a settlement there. It was handed over to
Amyntas, King of Galatia sometime around 39 B.C. The most illustrious part of Antioch's
history, however, began in 25 B.C. when Roman Empero