What Really Happened At Nicea? by James R. White
Summary: The Council of Nicea is often misrepresented
by cults and other religious movements. The actual concern of the council
was clearly and unambiguously the relationship between the Father and
the Son. Is Christ a creature, or true God? The council said He was
true God. Yet, the opponents of the deity of Christ did not simply give
up after the council’s decision. In fact, they almost succeeded
in overturning the Nicene affirmation of Christ’s deity.
But faithful Christians like Athanasius continued
to defend the truth, and in the end, truth triumphed over error.The
conversation intensified quickly. "You can’t really trust the
Bible," my Latter-day Saints acquaintance said, "because you really
don’t know what books belong in it. You see, a bunch of men got
together and decided the canon of Scripture at the Council of Nicea,
picking some books, rejecting others." A few others were listening in
on the conversation at the South Gate of the Mormon Temple in Salt Lake
City.
It was the LDS General Conference, and I again
heard the Council of Nicea presented as that point in history where
something "went wrong," where some group of unnamed, faceless men "decided"
for me what I was supposed to believe. I quickly corrected him about
Nicea — nothing was decided, or even said, about the canon of
Scripture at that council.1 I was reminded how often the phrase "the
Council of Nicea" is used as an accusation by those who reject the Christian
faith. New Agers often allege that the council removed the teaching
of reincarnation from the Bible.2 And of course, Jehovah’s Witnesses
and critics of the deity of Christ likewise point to that council as
the "beginning of the Trinity" or the "first time the deity of Christ
was asserted as orthodox teaching." Others see it as the beginning of
the union of church and state in light of the participation of the Roman
Emperor, Constantine. Some even say it was the beginning of the Roman
Catholic church.
THE BACKGROUND
Excepting the apostolic council in Jerusalem
recorded in Acts 15, the Council of Nicea stands above other early councils
of the church as far as its scope and its focus. Luther called it "the
most sacred of all councils."3 When it began on June 19, 325, the fires
of persecution had barely cooled. The Roman Empire had been unsuccessful
in its attempt to wipe out the Christian faith. Fourteen years had elapsed
since the final persecutions under the Emperor Galerius had ended. Many
of the men who made up the Council of Nicea bore in their bodies the
scars of persecution.
They had been willing to suffer for the name
of Christ.The council was called by the Emperor Constantine. Leading
bishops in the church agreed to participate, so serious was the matter
at hand. To understand why the first universal council was called, we
must go back to around A.D. 318. In the populous Alexandria suburb of
Baucalis, a well-liked presbyter by the name of Arius began teaching
in opposition to the bishop of Alexandria, Alexander.
Specifically, he disagreed with Alexander’s
teaching that Jesus, the Son of God, had existed eternally, being "generated"
eternally by the Father. Instead, Arius insisted that "there was a time
when the Son was not." Christ must be numbered among the created beings
— highly exalted, to be sure, but a creation, nonetheless. Alexander
defended his position, and it was not long before Arius was declared
a heretic in a local council in 321.This did not end the matter. Arius
simply moved to Palestine and began promoting his ideas there. Alexander
wrote letters to the churches in the area, warning them against those
he called the "Exukontians," from a Greek phrase meaning "out of nothing."
Arius taught that the Son of God was created "out of nothing."
Arius found an audience for his teachings,
and over the course of the next few years the debate became so heated
that it came to the attention of Constantine, the Emperor.Having consolidated
his hold on the Empire, Constantine promoted unity in every way possible.
He recognized that a schism in the Christian church would be just one
more destabilizing factor in his empire, and he moved to solve the problem.4
While he had encouragement from men like Hosius, bishop of Cordova,
and Eusebius of Caesarea, Constantine was the one who officially called
for the council.5
THE PARTICIPANTS AND THEIR VIEWS
The Council of Nicea was mostly Eastern. According
to tradition, 318 bishops were in attendance, though most historians
believe this number is a bit high. The vast majority came from the East,
with less than a dozen representing the rest of the Empire.The council
was divided into three groups. Arius was in attendance, at the command
of the Emperor, along with a few supporters. Most notable of these were
two Egyptian bishops, Theonas and Secundus, as well as Eusebius of Nicomedia.
This group represented the viewpoint that
Christ was of a different substance (Greek: heteroousios) than the Father,
that is, that He is a creature.The "orthodox" group was led primarily
by Hosius of Cordova and Alexander of Alexandria (accompanied by his
brilliant young deacon, and later champion of the Nicene position, Athanasius6).
They represented the view that Christ was of the same substance (Greek:
homo-ousios7) as the Father, that is, that He has eternally shared in
the one essence that is God and in full deity.The middle group, led
by Eusebius of Caesarea (and hence often called the "Eusebian" party),
distrusted the term homoousios, primarily because it had been used in
the previous century by the modalistic8 heretic Sabellius and others
who wished to teach the error that the Father and the Son were one person.
This middle group agreed with the orthodox
party that Jesus was fully God, but they were concerned that the term
homoousios could be misunderstood to support the false idea that the
Father and Son are one person. The middle group therefore presented
the idea that the Son was of a similar substance (Greek: homoiousios)
as the Father. By this means they hoped to avoid both the error of Arius
as well as the perceived danger of Sabellianism found in the term homoousios.
Party/Leaders View of Christ
Arian/Arius of a different substance — heteroousios
Orthodox/Alexander, Hosius, Athanasius of the same substance —
homoousios Eusebian/Eusebius of Caesarea of a similar substance —
homoiousios
THE ROLE OF CONSTANTINE
We are dependent, in large measure, on the
words of Eusebius of Caesarea for our knowledge of many of the events
at the council. This is somewhat unfortunate, because Eusebius, the
first "church historian," was a partisan participant as well. Historians
recognize that his viewpoint is influenced by his desire for the favor
of the Emperor and by his own political and theological goals and positions.
Philip Schaff, in reproducing Eusebius’s description of the entrance
of the Emperor into the council, speaks of Eusebius’s "panegyrical
flattery."9 Eusebius presents Constantine in the highest possible terms
so as to enhance his own position.What really was Constantine’s
role? Often it is alleged (especially by Jehovah’s Witnesses,
for example) that, for whatever reasons, Constantine forced the "same
substance" view upon the council,10 or, at the very least, insured that
it would be adopted. This is not the case.
There is no question that Constantine wanted
a unified church after the Council of Nicea. But he was no theologian,
nor did he really care to any degree what basis would be used to forge
the unity he desired. Later events show that he didn’t have any
particular stake in the term homoousios and was willing to abandon it,
if he saw that doing so would be of benefit to him. As Schaff rightly
points out with reference to the term itself, "The word...was not an
invention of the council of Nicea, still less of Constantine, but had
previously arisen in theological language, and occurs even in Origen
[185-254] and among the Gnostics...."11 Constantine is not the source
or origin of the term, and the council did not adopt the term at his
command.
THE DECISION AND THE CREED
The truth of how the council came to use the
term is not difficult to discern. Athanasius notes that the gathered
bishops truly desired to express their faith in primarily scriptural
language, and they tried to do so. But every time they came up with
a statement that was limited solely to biblical terms, the Arians would
find a way of "reading" the statement so as to allow for agreement.12
They were forced to see that they needed to use a term that could not
be misunderstood, that would clearly differentiate between a belief
in the full deity of Christ and all those positions that would compromise
that belief.
Therefore, they focused on the term homoousios
as being completely antithetical to the Arian position, and at the same
time reflective of the scriptural truth that Jesus Christ is not a creature,
but is fully God, incarnate deity.The "orthodox" party had to express
clearly to the "middle group" that by the use of the term homoousios
they were not in any way attempting to give aid and comfort to the modalists
and Sabellians in the East who continued to teach their errors even
in the days of Nicea. They were not compromising the existence of three
Persons, but were instead safeguarding the full deity of the Persons,
and in particular, the Son.13
The resulting creed, signed by all but Arius
and two bishops, was quite clear in its position:We believe...in one
Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only-begotten,
that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from
light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one substance
(homoousios) with the Father, through Whom all things were made....The
creed also contained the "anathema" (i.e., condemnation) for those who
rejected these truths, and for the first time, such anathemas carried
with them civil repercussions.
Arius and some of his followers were banished,
even though for a short time. This set a precedent that eventually would
have tremendous impact on culture and church, but it is also a separate
issue from the theological proclamation of the council.Nicea did not
come up with something "new" in the creed. Belief in the deity of Christ
was as old as the apostles themselves, who enunciated this truth over
and over again.14 References to the full deity of Christ are abundant
in the period prior to the Council of Nicea.
Ignatius (died c. 108), the great martyr bishop
of Antioch, could easily speak of Jesus Christ as God at the opening
of the second century. More than once Ignatius speaks of Jesus Christ
as "our God."15 When writing to Polycarp he can exhort him to "await
Him that is above every season, the Eternal, the Invisible, (who for
our sake became visible!), the Impalpable, the Impassible, (who for
our sake suffered!), who in all ways endured for our sake."16 Ignatius
shows the highest view of Christ at a very early stage, when he writes
to the Ephesians: "There is only one physician, of flesh and of spirit,
generate and ingenerate, God in man, true Life in death, Son of Mary
and Son of God, first passible and then impassible, Jesus Christ our
Lord."17Melito of Sardis (c. 170-180), a much less well-known figure,
was tremendously gifted in expressing the ancient faith of the church
regarding the deity of Christ:
And so he was lifted up upon a tree and an
inscription was provided too, to indicate who was being killed. Who
was it? It is a heavy thing to say, and a most fearful thing to refrain
from saying. But listen, as you tremble in the face of him on whose
account the earth trembled. He who hung the earth in place is hanged.
He who fixed the heavens in place is fixed in place. He who made all
things fast is made fast on the tree. The Master is insulted. God is
murdered. The King of Israel is destroyed by an Israelite hand.18Nicea
was not creating some new doctrine, some new belief, but clearly, explicitly,
defining truth against error.
The council had no idea that they, by their
gathering together, possessed some kind of sacramental power of defining
beliefs: they sought to clarify biblical truth, not to put themselves
in the forefront and make themselves a second source of authority. This
can easily be seen from the fact that Athanasius, in defending the Nicene
council, does so on the basis of its harmony with Scripture, not on
the basis of the council having some inherent authority in and of itself.
Note his words: "Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that
they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divine Scripture
is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point,
there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did
not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrines so exactly, that persons
reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the
religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture."19
The relationship between the sufficient Scriptures
and the "Nicene Bishops" should be noted carefully. The Scriptures are
not made insufficient by the council; rather, the words of the council
"remind" one of the "religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture."
Obviously, then, the authority of the council is derivative from its
fidelity to Scripture.CANON #6While the creed of the council was its
central achievement, it was not the only thing that the bishops accomplished
during their meeting.
Twenty canons were presented dealing with
various disciplinary issues within the church. Of most interest to us
today was the sixth, which read as follows: Let the ancient customs
in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria
have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the
Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let
the Churches retain their privileges.20
This canon is significant because it demonstrates
that at this time there was no concept of a single universal head of
the church with jurisdiction over everyone else. While later Roman bishops
would claim such authority, resulting in the development of the papacy,
at this time no Christian looked to one individual, or church, as the
final authority.
This is important because often we hear it
alleged that the Trinity, or the Nicene definition of the deity of Christ,
is a "Roman Catholic" concept "forced" on the church by the pope. The
simple fact of the matter is, when the bishops gathered at Nicea they
did not acknowledge the bishop of Rome as anything more than the leader
of the most influential church in the West.21
THE AFTERMATH
Modern Christians often have the impression
that ancient councils held absolute sway, and when they made "the decision,"
the controversy ended. This is not true.
Though Nicea is seen as one of the greatest
of the councils, it had to fight hard for acceptance. The basis of its
final victory was not the power of politics, nor the endorsement of
established religion. There was one reason the Nicene definition prevailed:
its fidelity to the testimony of the Scriptures.During the six decades
between the Council of Nicea and the Council of Constantinople in 381,
Arianism experienced many victories.
There were periods where Arian bishops constituted
the majority of the visible ecclesiastical hierarchy. Primarily through
the force of political power, Arian sympathizers soon took to undoing
the condemnation of Arius and his theology. Eusebius of Nicomedia and
others attempted to overturn Nicea, and for a number of decades it looked
as if they might succeed. Constantine adopted a compromising position
under the influence of various sources, including Eusebius of Caesarea
and a politically worded "confession" from Arius. Constantine put little
stock in the definition of Nicea itself: he was a politician to the
last.
Upon his death, his second son Constantius
ruled in the East, and he gave great aid and comfort to Arianism. United
by their rejection of the homoousion, semi-Arians and Arians worked
to unseat a common enemy, almost always proceeding with political power
on their side. Under Constantius, council after council met in this
location or that. So furious was the activity that one commentator wrote
of the time, "The highways were covered with galloping bishops."22 Most
importantly, regional councils meeting at Ariminum, Seleucia, and Sirmium
presented Arian and semi-Arian creeds, and many leaders were coerced
into subscribing to them.
Even Liberius, bishop of Rome, having been
banished from his see (position as bishop) and longing to return, was
persuaded to give in and compromise on the matter.23During the course
of the decades following Nicea, Athanasius, who had become bishop of
Alexandria shortly after the council, was removed from his see five
times, once by force of 5,000 soldiers coming in the front door while
he escaped out the back! Hosius, now nearly 100 years old, was likewise
forced by imperial threats to compromise and give place to Arian ideas.
At the end of the sixth decade of the century, it looked as if Nicea
would be defeated.
Jerome would later describe this moment in
history as the time when "the whole world groaned and was astonished
to find itself Arian."24Yet, in the midst of this darkness, a lone voice
remained strong. Arguing from Scripture, fearlessly reproaching error,
writing from refuge in the desert, along the Nile, or in the crowded
suburbs around Alexandria, Athanasius continued the fight. His unwillingness
to give place — even when banished by the Emperor, disfellowshipped
by the established church, and condemned by local councils and bishops
alike — gave rise to the phrase, Athanasius contra mundum: "Athanasius
against the world." Convinced that Scripture is "sufficient above all
things,"25 Athanasius acted as a true "Protestant" in his day.26 Athanasius
protested against the consensus opinion of the established church, and
did so because he was compelled by scriptural authority.
Athanasius would have understood, on some
of those long, lonely days of exile, what Wycliffe meant a thousand
years later: "If we had a hundred popes, and if all the friars were
cardinals, to the law of the gospel we should bow, more than all this
multitude."27Movements that depend on political favor (rather than God’s
truth) eventually die, and this was true of Arianism. As soon as it
looked as if the Arians had consolidated their hold on the Empire, they
turned to internal fighting and quite literally destroyed each other.
They had no one like a faithful Athanasius,
and it was not long before the tide turned against them. By A.D. 381,
the Council of Constantinople could meet and reaffirm, without hesitancy,
the Nicene faith, complete with the homoousious clause. The full deity
of Christ was affirmed, not because Nicea had said so, but because God
had revealed it to be so. Nicea’s authority rested upon the solid
foundation of Scripture. A century after Nicea, we find the great bishop
of Hippo, Augustine, writing to Maximin, an Arian, and saying: "I must
not press the authority of Nicea against you, nor you that of Ariminum
against me; I do not acknowledge the one, as you do not the other; but
let us come to ground that is common to both — the testimony of
the Holy Scriptures."28
NICEA TODAY
Why do Christians believe in the deity of
Christ today? Is it because they have been forced to do so by legislated
theology from councils and popes? No, it is because the Scriptures teach
this truth. When orthodox believers affirm the validity of the creed
hammered out at Nicea, they are simply affirming a concise, clear presentation
of scriptural truth. The authority of the Nicene creed, including its
assertion of the homoousion, is not to be found in some concept of an
infallible church, but in the fidelity of the creed to scriptural revelation.
It speaks with the voice of the apostles because it speaks the truth
as they proclaimed it. Modern Christians can be thankful for the testimony
of an Athanasius who stood for these truths even when the vast majority
stood against him.
We should remember his example in our day.
James R. White is Scholar in Residence at the College of Christian Studies,
Grand Canyon University, an adjunct professor at Golden Gate Baptist
Theological Seminary (AZ Campus) and Faraston Theological Seminary,
and Director of Ministries for Alpha and Omega Ministries in Phoenix,
Arizona.NOTES1The Council of Nicea did not take up the issue of the
canon of Scripture. In fact, only regional councils touched on this
issue (Hippo in 393, Carthage in 397) until much later.
The New Testament canon developed in the consciousness
of the church over time, just as the Old Testament canon did. See Don
Kistler, ed., Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible (Morgan,
PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1995).2See Joseph P. Gudel, Robert
M. Bowman, Jr., and Dan R. Schlesinger, "Reincarnation — Did the
Church Suppress It?" Christian Research Journal, Summer 1987, 8-12.3Gordon
Rupp, Luther’s Progress to the Diet of Worms (New York: Harper
and Row Publishers, 1964), 66.4
Much has been written about Constantine’s
religious beliefs and his "conversion" to Christianity. Some attribute
to him high motives in his involvement at Nicea; others see him as merely
pursuing political ends. In either case, we do not need to decide the
issue of the validity of his confession of faith, for the decisions
of the Nicene Council on the nature of the Son were not dictated by
Constantine, and even after the Council he proved himself willing to
"compromise" on the issue, all for the sake of political unity.
The real battle over the deity of Christ was
fought out in his shadow, to be sure, but it took place on a plane he
could scarcely understand, let alone dominate.5Later centuries would
find the idea of an ecumenical council being called by anyone but the
bishop of Rome, the pope, unthinkable. Hence, long after Nicea, in A.D.
680, the story began to circulate that in fact the bishop of Rome called
the Council, and even to this day some attempt to revive this historical
anachronism, claiming the two presbyters (Victor and Vincentius) who
represented Sylvester, the aged bishop of Rome, in fact sat as presidents
over the Council. See Philip Schaff’s comments in his History
of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 3:335.6Athanasius’s
role at the council has been hotly debated.
As a deacon, he would not, by later standards,
even be allowed to vote. But his brilliance was already seen, and it
would eventually fall to him to defend the decisions of the Council,
which became his lifelong work.7The Latin translation is consubstantialis,
consubstantial, which is the common rendering of the term in English
versions of the final form of the Nicene Creed.8Modalism is the belief
that there is one Person in the Godhead who at times acts as the Father,
and other times as the Son, and still other times as the Spirit.
Modalism denies the Trinity, which asserts
that the three Persons have existed eternally.9Schaff, 3:624.10The only
basis that can be presented for such an idea is found in a letter, written
by Eusebius of Caesarea during the council itself to his home church,
explaining why he eventually gave in and signed the creed, and agreed
to the term homoousios.
At one point Eusebius writes that Constantine
"encouraged the others to sign it and to agree with its teaching, only
with the addition of the word ‘consubstantial’ [i.e., homoousios]."
The specific term used by Eusebius, parakeleueto, can be rendered as
strongly as "command" or as mildly as "advise" or "encourage." There
is nothing in Eusebius’s letter, however, that would suggest that
he felt he had been ordered to subscribe to the use of the term, nor
that he felt that Constantine was the actual source of the term.11Schaff,
3:628.12Someone might say that this demonstrates the insufficiency of
Scripture to function as the sole infallible rule of faith for the church;
that is, that it denies sola scriptura. But sola scriptura does not
claim the Bible is sufficient to answer every perversion of its own
revealed truths.
Peter knew that there would be those who twist
the Scriptures to their own destruction, and it is good to note that
God has not deemed it proper to transport all heretics off the planet
at the first moment they utter their heresy. Struggling with false teaching
has, in God’s sovereign plan, been a part of the maturing of His
people.13For many generations misunderstandings between East and West,
complicated by the language differences (Greek remaining predominate
in the East, Latin becoming the normal language of religion in the West),
kept controversy alive even when there was no need for it.14
Titus 2:13, 2 Pet. 1:1, John 1:1-14, Col.
1:15-17, Phil. 2:5-11, etc.15See, for example, his epistle to the Ephesians,
18, and to the Romans, 3, in J. B. Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer, eds.,
The Apostolic Fathers (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984), 141 and
150.16Polycarp 3, The Apostolic Fathers, 161.17Ephesians 7, The Apostolic
Fathers, 139.18Melito of Sardis, A Homily on the Passover, sect. 95-96,
as found in Richard Norris, Jr., The Christological Controversy (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1980), 46.
This homily is one of the best examples of
early preaching that is solidly biblical in tone and Christ-centered
in message.19Athanasius, De Synodis, 6, as found in Philip Schaff and
Henry Wace, eds., Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Series II (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1983), IV:453.20Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Series II,
XIV:15.21For those who struggle with the idea that it was not "Roman
Catholicism" that existed in those days, consider this: if one went
into a church today, and discovered that the people gathered there did
not believe in the papacy, did not believe in the Immaculate Conception
of Mary, the Bodily Assumption of Mary, purgatory, indulgences, did
not believe in the concept of transubstantiation replete with the communion
host’s total change in accidence and substance, and had no tabernacles
on the altars in their churches, would one think he or she was in a
"Roman Catholic" church? Of course not. Yet, the church of 325 had none
of these beliefs, either.
Hence, while they called themselves "Catholics,"
they would not have had any idea what "Roman Catholic" meant.22Ammianus
Marcellinus, as cited by Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), III:632.23For a discussion of the lapse of
Liberius, see Schaff, III:635-36. For information on the relationship
of Liberius and the concept of papal infallibility, see George Salmon,
The Infallibility of the Church (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1959),
425-29, and Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (Grand Rapids:
Baker Book House, 1985), I:176-78.24Jerome, Adversus Luciferianos, 19,
Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Series II, 6:329.25Athanasius, De Synodis,
6, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Series II, 4:453.26I credit one of
my students, Michael Porter, with this phraseology.27Robert Vaughn,
The Life and Opinions of John de Wycliffe (London: Holdworth and Ball,
1831), 313. See 312-17 for a summary of Wycliffe’s doctrine of
the sufficiency of Scripture.28Augustine, To Maximim the Arian, as cited
by George Salman, The Infallibility of the Church (Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House, 1959), 295.
Back To The Previous Page
