15th April, 2006

TONY TOWNSEND

The Council of Nicaea held in AD 325 became a watershed moment for the Christian Church when it formulated one of the most popular and recognizable creeds in Christian History.

Origins
In AD 318 a bitter dispute broke between Alexander, bishop of Alexandria and one of his senior priests Arius over the divinity of Christ.

MAKING  A STATEMENT: A modern rendering of a Latin version of the Nicene Creed. Copyright James Matthew Farrow (1995) While there have been several versions of the Nicene Creed, below is one of the most recent versions: We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty. Maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father, Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, And his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Arius strongly advocated the belief that Christ was a created being, inferior to the Father both in nature and dignity but the first and noblest of all created beings. Despite being deposed as an elder by Alexander in 321 AD, Arius was able to win popular support from eminent church leaders who were sympathetic with his viewpoint.

Writing for Christian History and Biography, Colin Hansen describes Arius as “…an expert logician and master of extracting biblical proof texts that seemingly illustrated differences between Jesus and God…”

Bishop Alexanderas, on the other hand, held to the Son being both co-substantial and co-eternal with the Father.

This view was shared by the secretary to Alexander, Athanasius, whose intellectual and writing prowess, according to theologians, enabled him to have a significant influence on the outcome of the council.

Concerned for the divisive nature of the issue for both the church, Emperor Constantine convened the first ecumenical council in Christian History in AD 325, a meeting of bishops of the Eastern and Western parts of the empire, gathering at Nicaea in Bithynia (now Isnik, Turkey).

Tradition suggests that more than 300 bishops attended, however modern historians offer a more conservative figure of 250.

The bishops who attended the council were extended the highest of courtesies by Emperor Constantine. John McGucklin, a professor of early church history, writes that Constantine brought the bishops to his lakeside palace “...offering to pay all their expenses, to supply them with traditional gifts that followed an invitation to the court, and even to afford them prestigious use of the transport system, a privilege which had been strictly reserved for offers of state”.

It was interesting to note that many of the bishops who attended the council still bore the scars of earlier Roman persecution.

The Main Issue
The council opened on 19th June, 325 AD, with Constantine stressing the need for unity. The eternal and divine position and nature of the Son of God was the central feature of the debate. Was Jesus of the same or of similar “substance” - that is, nature or essence - to the Father?

Use of the term “substance” to describe the nature of the Father and Son was resolutely denounced by the pro-Arian party. Professor McGukin writes that the Arian party felt the term “...gave the Son equality with the Father without explaining how this relationship worked”.

“(T)hey attacked it for undermining the Biblical sense of the Son’s obedient mission,...it attributed substance (or material stuff) to God who was beyond materiality...” he writes. “Moreover, the term was unsuitable because it was not found in the Holy Scriptures and this indeed did disturb many of the bishops present for the occasion.”

Despite their protests, however, the majority of bishops supported use of the term substance and formulated a creed that declared Jesus was of the same substance of the Father, co-equal and co-eternal. This is evidenced in the wording of the original Nicene Creed - “Christ was the Son of God, only begotten of the Father...of the substance of the Father...very God of very God”.

It must be noted the decision taken at Nicaea didn’t represent a new understanding of who Jesus was. Rather, as writer Colin Hansen notes: “The participating bishops merely affirmed the historic and standard Christian beliefs...”

The creed would undergo further modification at the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD when a greater description of the members of the Trinity was added and the condemnation of the pro-Arian perspective was omitted.

The Aftermath
Following the council, Arius was denounced and banished. However despite the ruling upholding Christ’s deity, the debate continued to rage on for almost the next sixty years.

Professor Grudem writes that “though the Arians had been condemned at Nicea, they refused to stop teaching their views and used their considerable political power throughout the church to prolong the controversy for most of the rest of the fourth century” .

The Arian view of Christ still held great appeal, especially for Christians who had come out from a religious background where Arius’ view made more logical sense.

Christopher Hall, Dean of Templeton Honours College at Eastern University in the US, says that for many years in the fourth century, the Arian cause appeared to have won the day.

“Arius’ ideas offered a sensible, rational approach to the relationship between the Father and the Son, while the Nicene Creed seemed confusing, non-Biblical and provocative.”

Subsequent emperors showed favour to either to pro-Arians or to pro-Nicaen supporters depending on what view they held - a view which in turn would inevitably result in persecution of whichever group was out of favor.

Athanasius, meanwhile, would eventually become Bishop of Alexander but was the subject of regular banishment - time he would use to confront the Arian heresy through writing, traveling and meeting with church leaders.

Despite the Arian influence, however, the Nicene teaching prevailed and the creed has since become the most widely accepted creed in the Christian church, recited in Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox across the world.

Sources:
Hall, C.A. “How Arianism Almost Won” in Christian History and Biography (Christianity Today International, 2005)

McGuckin, J.A. “The Road To Nicaea” in Christian History and Biography (Christianity Today International, 2005)

Renwick A.M. & Harman A.M. The Story of The Church. 3rd Edition. (Inter-Varsity Press, England. 1999)

John, J.F. “Athanasius” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Walter A. Elwell Ed. (Baker Book House, Michigan, 1996)

Blaising, C.A. “Nicaea, Council of” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Walter A. Elwell Ed. (Baker Book House, Michigan, 1996)

Grudem, Wayne “Systematic Theology” An Introduction To Biblical Doctrine. (Inter-Varsity Press, England. 1994)

Hansen, Colin. Breaking The Da Vinci Code - http://christianitytoday.com