{
"$type": "site.standard.document",
"bskyPostRef": {
"cid": "bafyreifrd4oboipts2lirjgkk7vjyn55itxex4yaskghfnudlozlkvlrxe",
"uri": "at://did:plc:gl3kczkbg2rbkbyxzofc7k32/app.bsky.feed.post/3mkthjhvvmpq2"
},
"description": "This excerpt is taken from St. Athanasius who claims that the language adopted by Nicaea to describe the Son’s essential equality with the Father isn’t new but quite ancient, going back to at least 130 years earlier. Athanasius exposed the Arian heretics by appealing to an unbroken chain of Apostolic succession of Bishops to prove that the Church has always taught this truth about the Son.\n\nWith that said I now the words of this great saint. All emphasis is mine.\n\nAd Afros Epistola Synodica\n\n4. ",
"path": "/athanasius-on-the-ancient-basis-for-the-nicene-formula/",
"publishedAt": "2026-05-02T01:10:50.000Z",
"site": "https://answeringislam.blog",
"tags": [
"Ad Afros Epistola Synodica",
"persons",
"bishops",
"violence",
"Arian",
"heresy",
"piety",
"Exodus 3:14",
"essence",
"existence",
"Paul",
"glory",
"Hebrews 1:3",
"know",
"Scriptures",
"justice",
"John 1:3",
"Colossians 1:16",
"Arians",
"Christians",
"cause",
"hated",
"Father",
"ignorance",
"Romans 9:33",
"God",
"error",
"1 Corinthians 8:6",
"2 Corinthians 5:17-18",
"believe",
"true",
"1 Corinthians 11:7",
"Egypt",
"Joel 2:25",
"John 10:30",
"pious",
"John 3:31",
"knew",
"bishop",
"Son",
"war",
"virtue",
"grace",
"Luke 6:36",
"Matthew 5:48",
"angels",
"Adam",
"truly",
"holy",
"John 10:35",
"Tertullian: Trinity is the Faith of the Ancient Church",
"The Council of Antioch on Christ’s Divinity"
],
"textContent": "This excerpt is taken from St. Athanasius who claims that the language adopted by Nicaea to describe the Son’s essential equality with the Father isn’t new but quite ancient, going back to at least 130 years earlier. Athanasius exposed the Arian heretics by appealing to an unbroken chain of Apostolic succession of Bishops to prove that the Church has always taught this truth about the Son.\n\nWith that said I now the words of this great saint. All emphasis is mine.\n\nAd Afros Epistola Synodica\n\n4. _The Nicene formula in accordance with Scripture._\n\nIf then any cite the synod of Ariminum, firstly let them point out the deposition of the above persons, and what the bishops wrote, namely that none should seek anything beyond what had been agreed upon by the fathers at Nicæa, nor cite any synod save that one. But this they suppress, but make much of what was done by violence in Thrace ; thus showing that they are dissemblers of the Arian heresy, and aliens from the sound Faith. And again, if a man were to examine and compare the great synod itself, and those held by these people, he would discover the piety of the one and the folly of the others. They who assembled at Nicæa did so not after being deposed: and secondly, they confessed that the Son was of the Essence of the Father. But the others, after being deposed again and again, and once more at Ariminum itself, ventured to write that it ought not to be said that the Son had Essence or Subsistence. **_This enables us to see, brethren, that they of Nicæa breathe the spirit of Scripture, in that God says in Exodus_** Exodus 3:14_, 'I am that I am,'_ ** _and through Jeremiah_** , _'Who is in His substance and has seen His word;'_ and just below, _'if they had stood in My subsistence and heard My words_ :' **now subsistence is** essence**, and means nothing else but very being, which Jeremiah calls** existence, in the words, _'and they heard not the voice of_ existence.' **For subsistence, and** essence**, is** existence**: for it is, or in other words exists**. This Paul also perceiving wrote to the Hebrews, _'who being the brightness of his_ glory_, and the express Image of his subsistence_ Hebrews 1:3.' But the others, who think they know the Scriptures and call themselves wise, and do not choose to speak of subsistence in God (for thus they wrote at Ariminum and at other synods of theirs), were surely with justice deposed, saying as they did, like the fool did in his heart , 'God is not.' **And again the fathers taught at Nicæa that the Son and Word is not a creature, nor made, having read _'all things were made through Him_ **John 1:3**,' and _'in Him were all things created, and consist_** Colossians 1:16;' while these men, Arians rather than Christians, in their other synods have ventured to call Him a creature, and one of the things that are made, **_things of which He Himself is the Artificer and Maker. For if _'through Him all things were made'_ and He too is a creature, He would be the creator of Himself. And how can what is being created create? Or He that is creating be created?_**\n\n5. _How the test 'Coessential' came to be adopted at Nicæa._\n\nBut not even thus are they ashamed, although they say such things as cause them to be hated by all; citing the Synod of Ariminum, only to show that there also they were deposed. And as to the actual definition of Nicæa, **that the Son is coessential with the** Father**, on account of which they ostensibly oppose the synod** , and buzz around everywhere like gnats about the phrase, either they stumble at it from ignorance, like those who stumble _at the stone of stumbling that was laid in Sion_ Romans 9:33; or else they know, but for that very reason are constantly opposing and murmuring, **because it is an accurate declaration and full in the face of their** heresy. For it is not the phrases that vex them, but the condemnation of themselves which the definition contains. And of this, once again, they are themselves the cause, even if they wish to conceal the fact of which they are perfectly aware — But we must now mention it, **in order that hence also the accuracy of the great synod may be shown. For the assembled** bishops**wished to put away the impious phrases devised by the** Arians**, namely 'made of nothing,' and that the Son was 'a thing made,' and a 'creature,' and that 'there was a time when He was not,' and that 'He is of mutable nature.'__And they wished to set down in writing the acknowledged language of Scripture, namely that the Word is of God by nature Only-begotten, Power, Wisdom of the__** Father**__, Very__** God**__, as John says, and as__** Paul**__wrote, brightness of the Father's__** glory**__and express image of His person__**. But Eusebius and his fellows, drawn on by their own error, kept conferring together as follows: 'Let us assent. For we also are of God: _for there is one God of whom are all things_ 1 Corinthians 8:6, _and old things are passed away, behold all things are made new, but all things are of God_ 2 Corinthians 5:17-18 .' And they considered what is written in the Shepherd, _'Before all things_ believe_that God is one, who created and set all things in order, and made them to exist out of nothing_.' But **the Bishops** , beholding their craftiness, and the cunning of their impiety, expressed more plainly the sense of the words 'of God,' **by writing that the Son is of the Essence of** God, so that whereas the Creatures, since they do not exist of themselves without a cause, but have a beginning of their existence, are said to be 'of God,' **the Son alone might be deemed proper to the Essence of the Father**. For this is peculiar to one who is Only-begotten and true Word in relation to a Father, **and this was the reason why the words 'of the** essence**' were adopted**. Again , upon the bishops asking the dissembling minority if they agreed that the Son was not a Creature, but the Power and only Wisdom of the Father, and the Eternal Image, in all respects exact, of the Father, and true God, Eusebius and his fellows were observed exchanging nods with one another, as much as to say 'this applies to us men also, for we too are called the image and glory of God 1 Corinthians 11:7, and of us it is said, ‘For we which live are always , and there are many Powers, and all the power of the Lord went out of the land of Egypt, while the caterpillar and the locust are called His great power Joel 2:25 . And the Lord of powers is with us, the God of Jacob is our help. For we hold that we are proper to God, and not merely so, but insomuch that He has even called us brethren. Nor does it vex us, even if they call the Son Very God. For when made He exists in verity.'\n\n6. _The Nicene test not unscriptural in sense, nor a novelty._\n\nSuch was the corrupt mind of the Arians. But here too **the Bishops** , beholding their craftiness, **collected from the** Scriptures**the figures of brightness, of the river and the well, and of the relation of the express Image to the Subsistence, and the texts** , _'in your light shall we see light ,_ ' and _'I and the Father are one_ John 10:30.' And lastly they wrote more plainly, and concisely, **that the Son was coessential with the Father; for all the above passages signify this.__And their murmuring, that the phrases are unscriptural, is exposed as vain by themselves, for they have uttered their impieties in unscriptural terms: (for such are 'of nothing' and 'there was a time when He was not'), while yet they find fault because they were condemned by unscriptural terms__** pious_**_in meaning_**_. While they, like men sprung from a dunghill, verily _'spoke of the earth_ John 3:31,' **__the Bishops, not having invented their phrases for themselves, but having testimony from their Fathers, wrote as they did. For ancient__** bishops**__, of the Great Rome and of our city, some 130 years ago, wrote and censured those who said that the Son was a creature and not coessential with the Father__**. And Eusebius knew this, who was bishop of Cæsarea, and at first an accomplice of the Arian heresy; but afterwards, having signed at the Council of Nicæa, **__wrote to his own people affirming as follows: 'we__** know**__that certain eloquent and distinguished__** bishops**__and writers even of ancient date used the word coessential with reference to the Godhead of the Father and the__** Son.'\n\n7. _The position that the Son is a Creature inconsistent and untenable._\n\nWhy then do they go on citing the Synod of Ariminum, at which they were deposed? Why do they reject that of Nicæa, **at which their Fathers signed the confession that the Son is of the Father's Essence and coessential with Him?** Why do they run about? For now they are at war not only with the bishops who met at Nicæa, **but with their own great** bishops**and their own friends. Whose heirs or successors then are they?** **How can they call men fathers, whose confession, well and apostolically drawn up, they will not accept?** For if they think they can object to it, let them speak, or rather answer, that they may be convicted of falling foul of themselves, whether they believe the Son when He says, _'I and my Father are one,'_ and _'he that has seen Me has seen the Father.'_ 'Yes,' they must answer, 'since it is written we believe it.' But if they are asked how they are one, and how he that has seen the Son has seen the Father, of course, we suppose they will say, 'by reason of resemblance,' unless they have quite come to agree with those who hold the brother-opinion to theirs, and are called Anomœans. But if once more they are asked, 'how is He like?' they brasen it out and say, 'by perfect virtue and harmony, by having the same will with the Father, by not willing what the Father wills not.' But let them understand that one assimilated to God by virtue and will is liable also to the purpose of changing; **but the Word is not thus, unless He is 'like' in part, and as we are, because He is not like [God] in** essence**also**. But these characteristics belong to us, **who are originate, and of a created nature**. For we too, albeit we cannot become like God in essence, yet by progress in virtue imitate God, the Lord granting us this grace, in the words, _'Be merciful as your Father is merciful:' 'be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect_ Luke 6:36; Matthew 5:48.' But that originate things are changeable, no one can deny, seeing that angels transgressed, Adam disobeyed, **and all stand in need of the** grace**of the Word. But a mutable thing cannot be like God who is** truly**unchangeable, any more than what is created can be like its creator**. This is why, with regard to us, the holy man said, _'Lord, who shall be likened unto you_ ,' and _'who among the gods is like you, Lord_ ;' meaning by gods those who, while created, had yet become partakers of the Word, as He Himself said, _'If he called them gods to whom the word of God came_ John 10:35.' But things which partake cannot be identical with or similar to that whereof they partake. For example, He said of Himself, _'I and the Father are one_ ,' implying that things originate are not so. For we would ask those who allege the Ariminian Synod, **whether a created** essence**can say, 'what things I see my Father make, those I make also**.' For things originate are made and do not make; or else they made even themselves. Why, if, as they say, the Son is a Creature and the Father is His Maker, **surely the Son would be His own maker, as He is able to make what the Father makes, as He said**. But such a supposition is absurd and utterly untenable, for none can make himself.\n\n**Further Reading**\n\nTertullian: Trinity is the Faith of the Ancient Church\n\nThe Council of Antioch on Christ’s Divinity",
"title": "Athanasius on the Ancient Basis for the Nicene Formula",
"updatedAt": "2026-05-02T01:10:51.904Z"
}