Chapter 13: What Else Happened Because of Nicaea? Hopefully, the wisdom of Hosius' advice is now clear to you. The theologians who were trying to save the Church ended up destroying it instead. But there is even more to the story: Adulation of Mary.
In his eagerness to magnify the deity of Christ, Athanasius, the most vocal defender of the Nicene Creed, gave Christ's mother, Mary, the title "Mother of God." After this, the 4th century witnessed an explosion in veneration of Mary, and it was the Nicene theologians, not the Arians, who took the lead in this. Augustine, the foremost defender of Nicaea in the West, gave his support to the false teachings that Mary was perpetually a virgin and that she lived a sinless life.
In fact, Augustine labeled the Christians who denied the perpetual virginity of Mary as heretics. In one of his sermons on the significance of Sunday, Augustine said, "It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator, who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created.
A virgin conceiving, a virgin bearing, a virgin pregnant, a virgin bringing forth, a virgin perpetual.
Why do you wonder at this, O man?" When Augustine wrote that all humans sin, he excepted Mary, saying, "We must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins out of honor to the Lord, for from him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear him who undoubtedly had no sin." Before long, the Church was teaching that Mary had been bodily assumed to heaven and that she
ruled as Queen of heaven, and once again, not one word of protest came from the lips of the Nicene theologians.
Gutting the Sermon on the Mount: While all of this was going on, prominent Nicene supporters like Augustine began explaining away Jesus' teachings in the Sermon on the Mount, as we've already seen. By the time these theologians got through with the Sermon on the Mount, the radical teachings in it had become meaningless.
For example, Jesus taught, "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.' But I say to you, do not swear at all." Matthew 5:33-34. That's a straightforward commandment, and the early Christians took it literally, but Augustine had no inhibitions about contradicting his Lord. Let a person understand that swearing is to be reckoned not among the things that are good, but among things that are necessary.
Therefore, he should refrain as far as he can from indulging in it, unless by necessity. That is, when he sees men slow to believe what is useful for them to believe, unless they are assured by an oath. To this accordingly, reference is made when it is said, "Let your speech be yea, yea, and nay, nay.
This is good and what is to be desired, for whatsoever is more than these comes from evil." That is, if you are compelled to swear, know that it comes of a necessity arising from the infirmity of those who you are trying to persuade of something. In other words, according to Augustine, Jesus' commandment was a mere suggestion: do not swear at all unless someone insists that you do. Don't turn the other cheek.
Jesus taught, "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, not to resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also." Matthew 5:38-39.
Again, this is a straightforward commandment, or at least it was until Augustine got through with it, but he deprived Jesus' teaching of any real meaning, saying, "We are not here precluded from inflicting such vengeance as serves for correction and as compassion itself dictates, nor does it stand in the way of that course proposed, where one is prepared to endure more from the hand of him whom he wishes to set right.
But no one is suitable for inflicting this punishment except the man who, by the greatness of his love, has overcome that hatred that normally inflames those who wish to avenge themselves. For it is not to be feared that parents would seem to hate a little son when, on committing an offense, he is beaten by them so that he may not go on offending. And certainly, the perfection of love is set before us by the imitation of God the Father himself, for whom the Lord loves, he corrects.
Yes, he scourges every son whom he receives. The Lord also says, "The servant who knows not his lord's will and does things worthy of stripes shall be beaten with few stripes. But the servant who knows his lord's will and does things worthy of stripes shall be beaten with many stripes." From this source, the most suitable example is drawn, in order that it may be sufficiently clear that sin can be punished in love rather than be left unpunished.
Accordingly, one may actually wish that the person on whom he inflicts punishment not be made miserable because of the punishment. Rather, he desires him to be happy by means of the correction. So, it is okay to take vengeance on an assailant, after all. Only make sure you do it out of love in order to correct the person. With such mental gymnastics, a person can make any verse of the Bible say whatever he wants it to say.
Imagine, with their lips, the Nicene theologians exalted Jesus as highly as possible, but in reality, they didn't hesitate to contradict his very words. They gutted his teachings, corrupted his kingdom, murdered others, and altered the historic faith handed down to them. But like the Jewish theologians before them, they imagined that God was beaming down at them with eyes of delight. Yes, the Nicene theologians ably defended the eternal begetting of the Son.
It took more than a century to root Arianism, or what was called Arianism, out of the Roman people, and nearly another century to root it out of the Germanic tribes. But while these theologians were devoting all of their energy to expunging Arianism from the institutional Church, Christianity was so thoroughly corrupted that it bore only a faint resemblance to the Christianity of the apostolic age. The theologians had won the battle but lost the war.
Nevertheless, as a result of the Arian controversy, the theological class became deeply entrenched in a position of power that they hold to this day.