So the Christian church not only did not, but could not address this topic sufficiently or accurately, during the 300 years before this distinction was created - yet - this understanding is essential to being a Christian. See a problem here? Sorry, not buying this for obvious reasons. What we should be aiming for is the understanding Christ had of himself and the apostles had of Jesus, and their immediate successors had, BEFORE all of these distinctions were made. THAT would be the orthodox faith, and any development afterward is only helpful at best, not essential, and the councils were not infallible. Since the councils were not infallible, we might be able to find fault in them. I have.
Incorrect. Though it was understandably delayed by extreme persecution, the very earliest apologists began distinguishing the subtleties of Greek word meanings to apply to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as one divinity in some manner.
Councils were to omit clearly heretical schismatic beliefs that were a threat to truth, unlike modern systematic theology, etc.
And I never indicated that understanding thosa word meanings was the threshhold for salvific faith. But to deny the authentic eternal and uncreated divinity of the Son and Holy Spirit is beyond that threshhold.
Salvation is a being/becoming comparable to copula/gerund in linguistics. We are "saved" when we receive the end of our faith.
If you're appealing to first century theology as orthodox, then you are in even greater peril. Polycarp and others clearly affirmed the ontological divinity of our Lord. Just because apologetics lagged behind that for clear expression, it doesn't change the core beliefs that you are trying to dismiss.
The Apostles weren't Unitarians or Arians or Sabellians.
