Nicaea and Its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology

I just finished reading Lewis Ayres weighty book on Nicaea. While I thoroughly enjoyed the book and learned a great deal, it is a hard book to read. The arguments are dense and involved, citing Greek and Latin terms as well as technical academic vocabulary. I had to look up a number of terms over and over again to follow Ayres's thinking. I say this as an academic myself, albeit a biblical scholar, specifically an Old Testament scholar with over 30 years teaching experience, two masters degrees and a PhD. The book is very good, but beware it is a hard read.Here is my take-aways after many hours of working through the text.1. One cannot easily divide into Eastern and Western views of the Trinity during this period. There is too much shared material and ideas. The older paradigm of East vs West does not hold.2. The development of Nicaean or Pro-Nicene doctrines was a long political struggle. I don't know how many persons were exiled and then returned, then exiled, then returned before the controversy ended, if ever it did.3. It seems the best summaries of Pro-Nicene doctrine can be found in the two Gregorys and in Augustine. If one wants to start there and then work backwards, one would find the best pathway.4. Ayres is very critical of current Trinitarian writing and research, particularly German authors and their legacy, stemming from Hegel. I found this fascinating. The two thrusts of Hegel he sights are: A. Conflating life of the Trinity with world process or the development of the Spirit/Geist (Hegel). After reading his argument, I found a lot of truth to what he says. But I also see involvement of YHWH in the OT and Jesus's actions in the NT as God interacting with the world. So, some caution here, but I think Ayres is on target, Too many modern Trinitarian works easily map the life of the Trinity onto world process. B. Linking the relationships of the Trinity to psychological categories. I find this line of thinking to be very on-target. Read for example Richard Rohr in the area of spiritual practice and see how he virtually maps the Trinity onto human psychology.5. Ayres draws attention to the pathway that Pro-Nicenes pursue in reading Scripture, from reading the plain sense of Scripture, to thinking and pondering, to finally union with the mystery of the Trinity itself. I like this, as I am both a biblical scholar and as well a trained Spiritual Director. I find absent from my academic teaching setting any emphasis that the people both reading and writing Trinitarian doctrine during the 4th century were actually attempting to get in touch with God, not just analyze a text. This is refreshing. People didn't study the Trinity to write academic paper. They did so to meet God.I gave this book 4 stars not because of its content and argument, but because it is just darn hard to read, even for an academic like me.

If you are interested in the development of doctrine as it occured at Nicea in the fourth century, this is an excellent book showing not only the development of doctrine but that modern scholars can fully comprehend the issues and nuances of the issue. I truly enjoyed it and learned much.

The content of the book is wonderful but the quality is bad. It's like they put billing paper into the printer and said o well after the run. I had two slide my finger to tear the perforation over 50 times to separate pages to be able to read.

Fine selection of excellent quality and free cookbooks.

It was disappointing that this book is pure opinion, without any evidence to prove its case. The first two sections are a historical survey, loaded with various conclusions and summaries for which no evidence is presented at all. The footnotes either just refer to a few primary sources, or give more unproven opinions.The third section of the book then in a bizarre fashion attempt to show that the "pro-Nicenes" all believe certain doctrines which were not even mentioned in the creed, such as deification. In each case the same logical fallacy is used to attempt to prove the case: arguing from a few specifics to a general. Quotes from primary sources of a few fathers who favor a specific doctrine, like deification, are quoted. The author then states what he thinks those quotes show that the fathers believed, which in itself is very debatable and just the author's unproven opinion. Finally comes the logical fallacy of assuming that since a few pro-Nicene fathers (supposedly) believed a certain doctrine, then ALL the Nicenes must believe it. Which is like saying that 3 pro-Nicenes had brown eyes, so ALL of them must have brown eyes.Of course any author has the right to throw out unproven opinions as thought provokers. That is why I award two stars. But it is very disappointing that from its cover this book has the appearance of being a researched and formally documented argument, which it clearly is not.

A

In this quite dense monograph Lewis Ayres traces the development of pro-Nicene theology. Rather than being definitive and universal the credal statement of Nicaea was more of a specific rebuttal to Arius, according to the author. Indeed it is made clear here that for some considerable while afterwards there was notable avoidance of 'ousia' terminology with much fear that it might lead to a modalist point of view. Lewis in particular looks at the role of Basil of Caesarea in the gradual process of the creation of pro-Nicene theology over the following half-century.Following on from the first two-thirds of the book giving consideration to a narrative treatment of these developments, the remainder of the work is a more thematic approach, which in particular seeks to demolish the idea of distinct Western versus Eastern Trinitarian viewpoints, with specific appeal to the Trinitarian theologies of Gregory of Nyssa and Augustine.A dense and hard going work, but excellent scholarship and an invaluable contribution to the study of 4th century theological development.

I've given this 5 stars because scholarship on this scale and of this density deserves it, but be aware that the prose can sometimes be as dense as the scholarship; this is not an easy read, and neither is it for the amateur (unless that amateur is already well up on the subject). All of that said, it is well worth the effort it takes. The author is pretty hard on some of his predecessors, but he is never so unfairly, and he always explains where, in his view, they have gone wrong. To some, it will seem that he is muddying the clear picture of the establishment of Trinitarian Orthodoxy, but in comparison with some other contemporary historians, he is almost a defender of it, and the fact that he locates a number of trajectories to what became established as Orthodox teaching does not mean that he denies the existence of Orthodoxy, just that he is capable of reconstructing it in its density and complexity. He is particularly good on St. Athanasius, and his work on the Cappadocian Fathers is outstanding.He entitles the book 'an approach', and he never claims too much for it, but it is, ultimately, a fruitful and constructive approach. I'd recommend this very highly to anyone with an interest in this subject; to professionals it is vital reading. After all, no one ever said scholarship has to be a gripping read, and a book this good does repay the effort it sometimes requires. Mind you, it might just be me, of course.

A vivid and well documented account of a difficult and exciting period for the Christian religion. The problems are tackled with real expertise and the book is pleasurable despite the difficult issues it describes

ニケア信条について、とても優れた研究書です。キリスト教の三位一体の神観について、クリスチャンたる者、必読の書です。