Recall from Chapters Three and Four: the catalyst for merging the profane and the holy was the deliberation over incompatible views of God. Chapter Nine documented what was assembled on the outside—the forbidden pagan milieu that produced triunity and homoousios. This is where the glue that cemented the two systems together in purpose was applied. This chapter documents who delivered it inside the church—and by what authority they did so.

The answer is: Satan’s legal heirs on the throne of Rome.

Constantine at Nicaea—325 AD

The Council of Nicaea was convened to settle a dispute between two branches of Trinitarian clergy—Athanasian Trinitarianism, which held that Father and Son were coequal in divinity and eternality, and Arianism, which held the Son was a preexistent being but was subordinate to the Father, and there was a time when the Son was not. Neither position was biblical. Both were philosophical.

When Athanasius claimed he was holding on to an earlier tradition, he had in mind Origen, who put forth the idea that all souls were eternal and, therefore, so was Jesus. When Arius claimed he was holding on to an earlier tradition, he had in mind Justin Martyr and Tertullian, both of whom believed there was a time when the Son was not. Those two streams need not detain us here. They add little once the origin of abandoning the Shema’s ‘one He’ is established. But do keep this in mind: During the fourth century, the emperors, heirs to Satan’s kingdom, often vacillated between these two views, showing that they were more interested in political stability than in biblical faithfulness.

Constantine personally proposed and championed the specific word homoousios—a word so controversial that even many Trinitarians at the council were uncomfortable with it, and so little associated with Athanasius himself that Athanasius did not champion it until thirty years after Nicaea, when he revived it as a persuasive tool. The word did not come from Athanasius, from Arius, from the apostles, or from Scripture. It came from Egyptian mythology—and the legal heir of Satan’s throne delivered it. Pier Franco Beatrice exposes Constantine’s context:

“The main thesis of this paper is that homoousios came straight from Constantine’s Hermetic background…in the theological language of Egyptian paganism, the word homoousios meant that Nous-Father and the Logos-Son, who are two distinct beings, share the same perfection of the divine nature.” —Beatrice.

“Hermes Trismegistus…entered the body of Christian doctrine in the semblance of Constantine, setting his seal on the formulation of the Nicene Creed.” —Beatrice.

Constantine did not confine himself to imposing the word. He also supplied a philosophical explanation to make it acceptable to the bishops, who had been trained in the Greek philosophical schools and were therefore receptive to philosophical framing. But the word he chose to impose came from his knowledge of Egyptian hermetic mythology—the very idolatry God commanded His people against—not philosophy.

Beatrice exposes the shell game:

“A careful scrutiny reveals strong analogies of thought and language between Constantine’s theology and the tradition found in both the Corpus Hermeticum and the five Egyptian theological oracles of the Theosophia…homoousios was a pregnant technical term, with its own precise, traditional Hermetic meaning…it was the heritage of the ancient Egyptian theology and of the revelation of Hermes Trismegistus.” —Beatrice.

Constantine’s motive was political, not theological, and certainly not fidelity to scripture or the God of the Bible, as the record shows:

“A whole series of new questions arises concerning the political and ecclesiastical motivations that led Constantine to impose the use of homoousios in the Nicene Creed.” —Beatrice.

Constantine wanted religious unity in his empire. He imposed a word from Egyptian mythology to achieve it. The bishops accepted it. From that point forward, every Trinitarian who confesses God as “one substance” stands on the authority of Rome’s emperor, Satan’s heir, and via him to the Egyptian god Poimandres—not on Scripture.

This is what split loyalty looks like. This is what happens when those called out of darkness look back in longing for that darkness. Recall the Jews longing to go back to Egypt. This is what forgetting Lot’s wife looks like in Christian context. This is what our opportunity to learn from their mistakes and do right by our God looks like for us today. The choice hasn’t changed, only the age and the scenery of the stage.

Constantine then ordered the burning of all of Arius’s writings and decreed that anyone caught hiding copies would be executed. Rome’s emperor, Satan’s heir, had now determined by imperial decree what Christians were permitted to believe about God—on pain of death. Recall the prophecies of Daniel 7:23–25 in Chapter Four: The fourth kingdom “devours the whole earth” and the little horn “makes war with the saints and prevails against them.” Here is where the prophesied war against the saints took on a Christian label, but not a new war. It has a biblical name: wolves in sheep’s clothing.

The Interval—The Councils of Sirmium

The story between Nicaea 325 and Constantinople 381 is a receipt of the corrupt fruit Jesus warned us to discern. After Constantine’s death, the theological debate continued—with different emperors backing different positions. Multiple councils were convened under Constantine’s son Constantius II—himself another legal heir of Satan’s throne—and those councils formally rejected the very word Constantine had imposed:

“One group of bishops…in a creed of 357…rejected the homoousios formula as being unsupported by Scripture, and argued instead for a subordinate Jesus in line with earlier tradition. A compromise creed issued by the emperor Constantius in 360 confirmed the unscriptural nature of homoousios…” —Freeman.

The Second Creed of Sirmium went further, issuing a formal declaration:

“There ought to be no mention of any of these at all, nor exposition of them in the Church, for this reason and for this consideration, that in divine Scripture nothing is written about them…” —Second Creed of Sirmium.

The same church that once established “same substance” as its official doctrine later formally acknowledged that the concept had no basis in Scripture at all. This alone demolishes the Trinitarian claim that Nicaea codified what was always believed. If it had always been believed, there would have been nothing left to reject, debate, and reverse for another fifty-six years.

It did not matter to Satan’s legal heirs which version prevailed. Constantine imposed homoousios. Constantius authorized rejecting it. Both were heirs to the same throne. It didn’t matter which lie got the job done—Satan’s heir would support whatever error unified his authority over God’s people. As long as God’s commandment was broken and a lie was obeyed instead, Satan’s heir accomplished his purpose regardless of which faction won.

Theodosius at Constantinople—381 AD

It took yet another legal heir of Satan’s throne to finally close the debate—not by Scripture, not by apostolic authority, but by imperial decree:

“Theodosius’ role was crucial. Without his political initiative, the Church would never have come to a consensus on such a complex issue. By acquiescing in Theodosius’ policy, the bishops were surrendering the opportunity to define the parameters of Christian doctrine…After Theodosius’ decrees, heresies were elaborated and debate constrained. ‘Clever theologians soon become heretics,’ as one bishop from Armenia observed in the 450s.
“It is possible to argue that the year AD 381 is one of the most important moments in the history of European thought. From then on, genuine debate over theological issues was not permitted…Authority replaced reason as the arbiter of truth.” —Freeman.

Freeman’s choice of words here is revealing. When he says, “complex issue,” recall Paul’s warning against moving away from the simplicity of Christ through the subtlety of the serpent. When he says, “the bishops were surrendering the opportunity to define the parameters of Christian doctrine,” what he should have been concerned with was that they took it upon themselves to determine good and evil. No Christian since the apostles was given the authority to “define” Christian doctrine. That is the signature mark of the serpent in the Garden. What we Christians are authorized to do is defend, not define, Christian doctrine.

The Edict of Thessalonica in 380 had already condemned other Christian creeds as heresies of “foolish madmen” and authorized their punishment. By 391, Theodosius made all religions other than Christianity illegal.

In the post-Nicene period, imperial decree branded the original Jewish Christians—Nazarenes and Ebionites, along with all Unitarians and any others, as heretics. Gregory of Nyssa explicitly named Jewish monotheism—the view of Jesus himself in John 4:22—a heresy.

What the Bishops Chose

The bishops who submitted to these councils made the same choice Adam and Eve made in the Garden—they accepted the authority of Satan’s representative over the authority of God’s word. The devil’s offer has always been the same:

Luke 4:6: “The devil said to him, ‘I will give you all this authority and their glory, for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I want.’”

The bishops wanted authority. They got it—along with everything that came with it.

Jesus showed a different way:

Revelation 3:21: “He who overcomes, I will give to him to sit down with me on my throne, as I also overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne.”

Summary—In this chapter, I have documented:

✦ That Constantine personally proposed and championed homoousios—a word and concept referring to a unique form of polytheism—at Nicaea from Egyptian mythology, not from Scripture or apostolic tradition

✦ That Athanasius himself did not champion homoousios until thirty years after Nicaea—documented proof that it was not the ancient apostolic belief Trinitarians claim.

✦ That Constantine ordered execution for anyone possessing Arius’s writings—Satan’s legal heir, determining by imperial decree what Christians were permitted to believe about God.

✦ That multiple councils under Constantius II formally rejected homoousios as having no basis in Scripture—the same church that imposed it previously acknowledged it was unscriptural.

✦ That the debate continued for fifty-six years after Nicaea—documented proof that Nicaea did not codify what was always believed.

✦ That it did not matter to Satan’s legal heirs which theological faction prevailed—as long as God’s commandment was broken, their purpose was accomplished.

✦ That Theodosius’s political initiative—not Scripture, not apostolic authority—was what finally settled the Trinitarian debate at Constantinople.

✦ That free theological debate was outlawed, the original Jewish Christians were deemed heretical, and Gregory of Nyssa explicitly made the view of Jesus himself a heresy.

✦ That the bishops who submitted chose imperial authority over God’s word—the same temptation offered in the Garden, the same offer Satan always makes.

Through all of this, the simplicity of God’s own immutable standard was never allowed to speak. ‘One He.’ It was there all along. They knew it. They actively refused it with an “anything but that” attitude. These emperors and the bishops who submitted to them stand documented as rebels against it.

“No temptation has taken you except what is common to man.” (1 Corinthians 10:13)

Keeping God’s commandments has always looked radical for those who don’t. It’s easy for us to look back on the temptation in the Garden or at how Israel constantly rebelled and looked to the gods around them and believe we would have stood for God.

“When Ahab saw Elijah, Ahab said to him, “Is that you, you troubler of Israel?” He answered, “I have not troubled Israel, but you and your father’s house, in that you have forsaken Yahweh’s commandments and you have followed the Baals.” (1 Kings 18:17–18)

Today, armed with the knowledge you are gaining from the documentation, you have the same opportunity to stand for God and his word against the traditions of men as biblical heroes of the faith did.

“He who overcomes, I will give to him to sit down with me on my throne, as I also overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne.” (Revelation 3:21)

Print This Post