During this period, there were also a number of very serious doctrinal disputes which came up. The three we will note (there were, of course, many others) will give us, I think, a glimpse into the nature of some of these doctrinal problems that came along, and also give us an idea as to how these were dealt with.

The Dispute over Christ’s Relationship to God the Father

The controversy actually began in Alexandria, and you remember Alexandria was one of the major cities during this time. The dispute centered on two elders of the church—two presbyters—who were there, one named Arius, the other named Athanasius. Arius was troubled because it seemed to him that Christian teaching, and those who were teaching and presenting the doctrinal principles were presenting a doctrine of three distinct Gods, God the Father, Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit. He took the position that Christ was different, that He was a different essence from the Father, and He was, thus, inferior. Now, Athanasius, on the other hand, asserted that God the Father and Christ the Son were essentially the same—they were of the same essence, and thus, they were equal.

Now, we might wonder and say, “Well, okay, we’ve got a local controversy. We’ve got a problem here between two brethren, two men who were presbyters, who were elders there in Alexandria. How could this be a major doctrinal problem?” Well, the argument actually spread. It spread from Alexandria and became an issue among theologians, among those who taught Christianity all over the east. And people, then, began to take sides. This became such a controversy, and it became such an issue, that it threatened the unity of the church. Also, Constantine was concerned that it might threaten the status of the Empire. That’s how far-reaching and wide-spread this had become.

Well, Constantine sort of “took the bull by the horns.” He was determined that this would be settled, and thus, his solution was to call a conference and to have the “bishops” and various scholars and theologians come to settle this issue. Do you see a problem here? Obviously, the church was already drifting from its roots. The apostasy was already underway. But here, we have, really, a problem that presents itself in that, the state has really become involved in the affairs of the church. Yes, the state had taken positions before—a position of persecuting Christians at one point, then later a position that they would tolerate and even elevate Christianity. But they were not specifically involved in the affairs, in the doctrine and the teaching and the practice of the church. And the “bishops,” it would seem, were so concerned about settling this grievance, this argument among themselves, that they failed to recognize the implications of allowing the state, the Empire—the Emperor specifically—to intervene and to become involved.

Well, in 325 AD, a council was called at a place called Nisei, a small city in the northwestern part of Asia Minor, where these matters were discussed. And this known historically as The Council of Nicaea. Well, there was a great deal of discussion. There was, actually, a great deal of bitter dissention over this matter, but in the end, the doctrinal position of Athanasius, who held that the Father and the Son are equal, would win out. But the controversy would not go away easily. It would be discussed again in later councils that were held in Constantinople in 381 AD and another that was held in 451 AD.

The Dispute over Christ’s Nature

Then there was a dispute over Christ’s nature. This was considered to be the second great controversy. This had to do with the incarnation of Christ and the relationship of the human to the divine nature of Christ. One position stressed the deity of Christ almost to the exclusion of His humanity. The opposite view emphasized Christ’s humanity so strongly that His deity was seriously compromised. Once again, this would be discussed and would be resolved in a “council,” this The Council of Ephesus in 431 AD. Which one prevailed, you ask? Well, really, neither one of them would prevail for very long, because it continued to be a controversy, and would be revisited again and again and again.

The Dispute over How Man is Saved

Then there was the dispute over how man is saved. This is considered to be the third major controversy. One named Pelegius, who is described as “an austere British monk,” came to Rome in the year AD 400. He expounded a view that, “salvation is essentially a matter of making right choices.” He repudiated the doctrine of “Original Sin,” and he held, in effect, that just as Adam and Eve were free to make a choice, so man is free to make a choice. Well, that doesn’t sound like it would be very controversial, except to this end, that man really saved himself, that you either made the right choice, or the wrong choice. And there was nothing in between, and there was nothing to ameliorate [to make or become better; to improve] your condition if you made the wrong choice—if you made a bad choice.

This view was opposed by one named Augustine, and, of course, Augustine is well-known in church history. He was the “bishop” of Hippo, which was in Northern Africa.

Actually, this controversy about how man is saved would continue, as well, because the opposition that Augustine brought was not really a Scriptural opposition. He would, rather, put forth a position that, indeed, God’s grace is necessary for salvation; that man really cannot do anything for himself; that man’s nature was such that he could not make right choices, and thus, man was completely dependent upon God. Well, say, that sounds like a pretty good doctrine. HOWEVER, he took it to the extreme—to the extreme that said that, one is pre-determined as to whether or not God will save him or her, and of course, this would eventually lead to the doctrine of “predestination,” a doctrine that would prevail and be picked up in later years, particularly during the period of the Reformation, especially by one named John Calvin.

So, again, here was this controversy. Again, it was one that would rage on and on, and people would take sides over it. And the “official positions” that were taken by these ones who were “leaders,” who were considered to be scholars, those whose positions people respected, were in both-wise wrong.

We see, then, that during this period of church history, there were these major controversies. There were others, as well. We see that they led to these “councils” that would come together with these ones who had been elevated, who had elevated themselves, and were recognized, then, as “church leaders,” to debate, to discuss, and the resolution of these matters, for the most part, would not be made based upon apostolic doctrine. They would be made based upon man’s reasoning, man’s opinion, even, to some extent, in sort of “diplomatic” and “democratic” kinds of ways. And so, we see there the beginnings of various and sundry types of meetings, of gatherings, of so-called “church leaders” to deal with controversies and issues, and so on, and often times they decided those apart from the Scriptures.