Today is the anniversary of the convening of the council of Nicaea. The council met in the city of Nicaea in Bythinia, in 325 A.D. and was attended by more than 300 bishops from around the world. Many of the bishops came still bearing the scars of tortures they had endured at the hands of persecutors just a few years previous. One of the chief issues before the council were the beliefs of the followers of Arius, a presbyter of Alexandria. The Arians had been spreading a divergent view of the pre-incarnate relationship Christ Jesus bore to the Father. The Arians taught three things in particular that were troublesome:
1. Christ was not eternal. Only God is eternal, only God has no beginning. The Son is not eternal but begotten.
2. Christ is a creature of God. He was the firstborn of all creation, created before all worlds and all things. He is the Creator of the world, but He is not uncreated Himself.
3. Christ is not of the same substance as God. Since He was created, He is not divine like God. He is totally distinct in substance from God for this reason.
The conclusions of the council were critical to preserving the Biblical teaching of our Savior’s person and work. They adopted a statement which affirmed (among other things) the following teachings:
1. Christ is very God of very God. Jesus is God in the same sense in which the Father is God. We may differentiate the Father and the Son in terms of their respective works and the relationship they sustain to each other, but they are equally divine.
2. Christ is of one substance with the Father. He is absolutely equal to the Father in every respect.
3. Christ is begotten not made. Jesus is eternal not created. From eternity He exists as the Son of God.
4. Christ became human for us men and for our salvation. Christ could not have brought salvation if He were only a creature. Salvation can only be accomplished by One who is God.
Almost all the bishops signed on to the creed (including almost all the Arians) so this didn’t settle the controversy, but the formula of Nicaea was a vital affirmation of Biblical truth in a time of great uncertainty. The books of Arius were burned and his followers branded as enemies of Christianity. Phillip Schaff notes that “The council of Nicea is the most important event of the fourth century, and its bloodless intellectual victory over a dangerous error is of far greater consequence to the progress of true civilization, than all the bloody victories of Constantine and his successors.” (vol. III, p. 631).
Good job guys.
And yet all of that is thrown out the window by most Christians today. No wonder we have so many churches that have all kinds of error.
Comment on comment:
All of that is thrown out by most Christians today? I don’t believe that’s true.
Comment on blog:
Congratulations on an excellent summation of Arius’ beliefs. That’s rarely well done.
It’s even worded well so it’s easy to understand. I am impressed.
I do have one disagreement. On your points from the council, you say that Christ is one substance with the Father. They did say that, and that was central to the council and the creed, but that is NOT the same as “He is absolutely equal to the Father in every respect.”
The Athanasian Creed teaches Jesus’ absolute equality to the Father, because within decades Nicene bishops and Modalist (“Jesus only”) bishops had created a compromised understanding of Nicea.
I feel comfortable saying that all non-modalist bishops at Nicea would have believed that the Father is greater than the Son because God is greater than his Word.
Tertullian says it best (c. A.D. 200), I think: “The Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as he himself acknowledges: ‘My Father is greater than I’” (Against Praxeas 9).
While Tertullian says it clearly, one can track the references to Jn. 14:28 (“My Father is greater than I”) throughout the pre-Nicene fathers and find remarkable consistency. Even Alexander, Arius’ bishop and opponent in Alexandria, wrote, “In this alone is he inferior to the Father, in that he is not unbegotten…as the Lord himself taught us when he says, ‘My Father is greater than I.’” (Letter to Alexander, bishop of Constantinople, par. 12).
I hate to disagree with such a great post as the one you just put up. It’s really well-worded and conveys important truth, but it seems important to me that people know what Christians consistently taught before the Nicene and modalist bishops created the “co-equal” idea in the 4th century.
Prior to the 4th century, Christians were consistent in what now gets branded as “subordinationism.” It’s not just Eusebius and Origen who believed the Father is intrinsically greater than the Son, it was all the early Christian writers.
Paul, I think you are correct on that. Thanks for the clarification.
Are there not many churches today that do not use the confessions and creed?
They may not use them, but they do hold to them–at least to the interpretation that’s put on them.
Mostly the creeds are about the two natures of Christ and the relationship between the Father and the Son. The Nicene Creed is now interpreted as though it were the Athanasian Creed, but it is held to.
Almost every evangelical cult watch group appeals to the creeds. I don’t know whether they really know what the creeds say, nor do I know if they know anything about the people who made the creeds, but they do appeal to them.
I think most American Christians would say, “I agree with the Apostles Creed,” and they would have some idea what they mean by that.
If they don’t use them, and if they don’t know what they say, it seems that they derive no real benefit from them.
The post does not mention the relevance of the Holy Spirit, as is so important in the original Church. The Holy Spirit is cited in both the gospels and the epistles, such as John 1.32-33, John 16.7, Acts 5.3, Acts 13.2. Often, in the Old Testament, God refers to himself or him-selves in the plural tense. “LET US MAKE MAN IN OUR OWN IMAGE.”
Also, on numerous occasions, Jesus points out his necessity for his submission to the Father, but also for the Father’s submission to him, in essence, having equality; John 5.21, John 14.10, John 14.30, Hebrews 1.8-9, Philippians 2.5-9.
Recognition of these two important factors justifies the Orthodox(and Catholic, ant Trinitarian) belief that God exists in a trinity, consisting of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, separate in will yet undivided. They are not separate Gods, they are all one, yet different forms of one another. This was the ultimate resolution to the Oecumenical Counsel of Nicaea. Most modern protestant faiths refute this fundamental truth of Christianity because of their inability to understand it within the context of monotheism.
Wow. The bishops at Nicea would have stopped their ears and fled at the suggestion that the Father was ever submissive to the Son. As for your Scriptures, it’s hard to decide whether to laugh at someone who suggesting those verses actually say that or to be offended at the abuse you just subjected Scripture to.
The post above doesn’t mention the Holy Spirit because there was no discussion of the Holy Spirit at Nicea. The council addressed only the relation of the Father and the Son.
Of course, I would guess from your comment that you won’t listen to anything I just said nor check anything out to see if it’s true.
In the First Oecumenical Counsel, or Synod, condemned the teaching of Arius, who taught that Christ was inferior to God the Father. He was proclaimed a heretic, excommunicated, and banished.
As for the Holy Spirit, the Nicene creed does address the Spirit;
Και εις το Πνεύμα το Άγιον, το Κύριον, το ζωοποιόν, το εκ του Πατρος εκπορευόμενον, το συν Πατρι και Υιω συμπροσκυνούμενον και συνδοξαζόμενον, το λαλήσαν δια των Προφητών. (And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father, who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, who spoke through the prophets.)
Excuse my poor use of accentuation… The Creed was written in ancient Katharevusa Greek; I am much more acquainted with modern Demotic.
While I only have about a year and a half of Greek, that was enough to get through most of what you quoted.
However, whatever the accentuation and whatever the dialect of Greek, that passage is still not from the Council of Nicea. You will find those words in modern versions of the creed, but the actual version from Nicea just had “we believe in the Holy Spirit.”
I don’t remember when the part about giving life, proceeding from the Father, and being worshiped was added; I think it might have been at the Council of Constantinople. It’s not from Nicea.
I must apologize for interjecting the historical teachings of my religion on an obviously protestant forum. It was out of place and probably contradictory to your contemporary beliefs. Sorry for the disruption.