Theophilus Monk’s Christian Internet Ministry

Coffee Talk Redux is a reflection on things God is teaching me. In some cases the ideas for these topics come from the Coffee Talk group that I meet with weekly at the Vintage Coffee Bistro located in Lambertville, Michigan. At other times the Redux topic may arise from some conversation I may have had with someone, or a thought that crossed my mind, something I have written, or perhaps something I read somewhere, or maybe a combination of all of these. In any case think of this as a discussion on what God is teaching us to help us grow in our understanding of His will for us.

The Nicene Creed was developed as a result of one of the most important and divisive challenges concerning the person of Christ. This was the heresy started at the beginning of the fourth century by Arius.

Arius was born around 256 AD in Libya and lived a rather long life dying in Constantinople in 336 AD. Arius received his religious education from Lucian who was a presbyter in the Church of Antioch located in Syria. Arius himself became a prominent and esteemed presbyter in the Church of Alexandria and about 318 AD he started an argument with his bishop Alexander and sparked what became known as the Arian heresy. The Arian heresy can be concisely stated by its motto, there was when He was not. At the time this controversy began, Constantine who had recently converted to Christianity was the Emperor of the Western regions and Licinius ruled the Eastern regions.

The following points concerning the Arian heresy can be made. First, Arius argued that there was a time when God was not a Father and therefore the Word or the Logos as represented by the incarnation of the Son was not coeternal with God. In other words, the Father existed before the Son. Furthermore, Arius argued that the Son was created by God ex nihilo or from nothing, and therefore Arius believed that the Son was a creature. The Son is therefore not begotten but is made by the Father since the Son is not of the same essence or substance of the Father, but rather the Son like other creatures is made from nothing. Arius also believed that the Logos or the Word was made by God before any other creatures were made hence the Logos or Word existed before the Incarnation. Arius also believed that referring to the Son as Word or the Logos is an abuse of terms since Arius believed that only God Himself is the true Word or Logos and everything, including the Son, is made by God. Being made by God and not of His essence the Son being a creature is therefore not God and the Son cannot see or know the Father perfectly. God is therefore totally transcendent and inaccessible to His creation. Furthermore, Arius believed that the Son is unique in comparison to other creatures in that the Son outranks or lies between God and the other creatures and that the Son was created for us. Arius clearly made a distinction between the person of God and the person of His Son Jesus Christ. In Arius’ view God was absolutely transcendent and unique and there is no possibility that God would share His essence or being with a creature. In other words, regarding the Son as a person or hypostasis, He is not homoousios with the Father. Therefore within the Trinity, the Son and the Holy Spirit did not share the essence of the Godhead and are not fully Divine.

In 324 AD Constantine defeated Licinius and became the sole Emperor of the Roman Empire. With Constantine being himself a recent convert and a catechumen, he hoped that Christianity would become the glue that would hold the vast expanse of his reign together. Because this controversy was causing such unrest throughout the Roman Empire and especially in the church of the East, Constantine decided to intervene. An isolated conflict between a bishop and his priest had now grown to such a level that the Emperor was compelled to become involved and settle the issue and restore unity to the Church. This was the first time that the authority of the state was invoked to settle a theological argument. Hence Constantine in 325 AD called the first ecumenical council of bishops in the town of Nicaea, located in Asia Minor not far from Constantinople.  This council was the first of a long series of ecumenical councils that have been called over the past 2000 years of the Church’s history.

What is now known as the First General or Ecumenical Council of Nicaea was reputed to have been attended by 318 bishops. Since Arius was not a bishop his position was argued by his friend Eusebius of Nicomedia. Alexander was the leader of another group that opposed Arius’ views and they were convinced that Arianism was a serious threat to the basic truths of the Christian faith. Eusebius of Nicomedia and a small group of other bishops were so convinced of the correctness of Arius’ position that they expected little opposition. When the bishops finally heard Eusebius explain Arius’ views that the Word or the Son was no more than a creature, this provoked angry reactions against Eusebius and his speech was snatched from his hand and torn to shreds. The mood of the assembly had changed drastically and it was clear that Arianism had to be rejected unconditionally.

Recognizing that relying on verses from Sacred Scriptures alone may not end the controversy in a decisive manner; it was decided to write a creed that expresses the faith of the Church while clearly excluding the views of Arius. In his Letter of the Council of Nicaea written to the people of his diocese, Eusebius of Caesarea claims that the creed of his own church was supported by the Emperor Constantine and that this creed served as a basis for the subsequent creed that was approved by the council of bishops gathered at Nicaea. However, Eusebius of Caesarea points out that Constantine wanted to insert the word homoousios to emphasize that the Son is begotten and of the same substance as the Father and is therefore coeternal with the Father. The assembly of bishops then agreed on a new creed that clearly rejected the views of Arius and any ideas regarding that the Son or the Word was a creature less divine than the Father. This new creed was known as the Nicene Creed.

Unfortunately the creed developed by the council of bishops that gathered in Nicaea did not end the controversy. Eusebius of Nicomedia remained undaunted and he basically lobbied Constantine until he gave in to his demands. Bishop Alexander died in 328 AD and he was then succeeded by Athanasius who was a deacon under Alexander and was also present at the Council of Nicaea. Athanasius then became the champion of the Nicene cause. However, Eusebius of Nicomedia being now in Constantine’s favor had Athanasius exiled as well as others that renounced Arianism and who followed the formula for the creed developed at Nicaea.

The political landscape changed again with the death of Constantine in 337 AD. He was then succeeded by two of his sons Constans and Constantius. The empire was now divided between the Western Emperor Constans, who supported Nicaea, and the Eastern Emperor Constantius, who supported the Arians. During their rule Constans asked his brother to allow Athanasius to return to his position as bishop of Alexandria which Constantius agreed to reluctantly. Soon however Constantius took over as the sole emperor, and it was then that, as St. Jerome said, the entire world woke from a deep slumber and discovered that it had become Arian.” In 353 AD Constantius the sole emperor launched his vigorous pro-Arian policy which forced a majority of the bishops to either accept Arianism or be banished. Athanasius fled Alexandria and lived in the desert for five years with the monks. Although there were still remnants of bishops and church leaders that supported the decisions made in Nicaea it was difficult for them to oppose Arianism since it was a doctrine supported by the state. But then Constantius died and he was replaced by his cousin Julian known as the Apostate. Julian had no interest in the controversy surrounding Arianism and he allowed the exiled bishops to return. Athanasius went back to Alexandria as bishop and Julian’s interest was then focused on restoring paganism to his empire.

With Athanasius now back in Alexandria he started to address the central issue that caused so much opposition to the creed developed at Nicaea. Athanasius concluded that the central issue revolved around the Son being the same substance as the Father. This could be construed to mean the Father and the Son were the same or not distinct. This led many involved in these discussions to the idea to replace homoousios (of the same substance) with homoiousios (of a similar substance) for the relationship between Father and Son. But Athanasius prevailed and came up with an interpretation of the creed developed at Nicaea that satisfied those that preferred homoiousios. At a synod held in Alexandria in 362 AD Athanasius argued that it was acceptable to refer to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as one substance provided it was understood that this did not mean that there was simply one person. He also said that one could speak of three substances as long as this was not understood to mean that there were three gods. At this synod Athanasius also gained acceptance of the Holy Spirit of being of the same substance or homoousios with the Father and the Son.

Athanasius died in 373 AD and the argument concerning the homoousios of the Father and Son was pretty much settled. But now the debate focused on whether or not the Holy Spirit was really homoousios or homoiousios. The so-called Pneumatomachians accepted the homoousios of the Son but believed that the Holy Spirit was of a substance like that of the Father and Son. But the Cappadocian Fathers known as St. Basil, his brother St. Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Gregory of Nazianzen were able to put forth convincing arguments that the Holy Spirit was homoousios thus asserting the full divinity of the Holy Spirit. The Cappadocians spoke of the Holy Spirit’s dual procession wherein the Holy Spirit derives His being from the Father through the Son. To resolve this issue on the divinity of the Holy Spirit and to address several other issues, Emperor Theodosius called the Second General Council, now known as the First General Council of Constantinople, in May 381 AD. At this Council the Church’s belief in the Trinity was finalized according to the thinking of Athanasius and the Cappadocians. As a result of the Council it was agreed that there is one God who is three Divine Persons. These three Divine Persons are also consubstantial (or homoousios), coequal, and coeternal. The three Divine Persons are united as One Holy Trinity who is also God. Each individual Person of the Holy Trinity is God, hence the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. However, there is only one God, not three gods. There are three Persons as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but One God. The heresy started by Arius was now decisively laid to rest with this final formulation of the Holy Trinity.

It is generally believed that prior to this First Council in Constantinople there already was in existence an expanded version of the creed developed at Nicaea that addressed the full divinity of the Holy Spirit. It is possible that this expanded version of the creed from Nicaea was the one approved by the bishops at Constantinople. However, full attribution of this creed to the First General Council of Constantinople was not given until the General Council of Chalcedon in 451. This is the expression of the faith that is now known as the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed or just the Nicene Creed.

The Nicene Creed is also Trinitarian in its organization and concludes with the promise of salvation. It also consists of twelve articles and is organized in a fashion that is very similar to the Apostles Creed. Article 1 concerns the Father and Creation, Articles 2 -7 focuses on His Son, and Article 8 pertains to the Holy Spirit. The concluding articles, 9 through 12, also refer to the Church, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and eternal life.

In a side by side comparison of the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed significant expansion is seen in Articles 2 and 8 which concern the person of Christ and the statement of the full Divinity of the Holy Spirit. These expansions clearly reflect the outcomes of the First Council of Nicea and the First Council of Constantinople. More subtle refinements are also noticed upon comparison of the other articles of these two creeds.

Considering these minor changes first the opening article of the Nicene Creed adds the phrase of all that is, seen and unseen which reflects the two fold nature of creation as being material as seen on earth and spiritual which would include non-corporeal beings such as angels. In article three the Nicene Creed adds the statement that He became man to ward off a variety of heresies at the time that challenged His Divinity and His humanity. Therefore the Nicene Creed is affirming that Jesus Christ is true God and true man. In the fifth article there is the addition that He rose in fulfillment of the Scriptures as prophesied in the Old Testament and promised by His own statements during His life on earth as stated by the angels in Luke 24:6-7, Remember how He told you, while He was still in Galilee, that the Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and on the third day rise. In article seven of the Nicene Creed there is the additional phrase that His kingdom will have no end which has the meaning that as a result of the redemptive work of Christ the eternal Kingdom of God has arrived. Compared to article nine in the Apostles Creed the Nicene Creed adds the so-called marks of the Church stating that We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. This statement serves to emphasize that the Church is one because of her source which is the Holy Trinity. The Church is also holy or sanctified through the love of the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father and the Son. By catholic is meant that the Church is universal due to the presence of Christ throughout and by virtue of its mission to all of mankind. Apostolic serves as a reminder that the Church was founded on the Apostles and she is continually being guided and taught by their successors the bishops. The other minor difference occurs in article 10 where the Nicene Creed adds the distinction of acknowledging one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

The Nicene Creed greatly expands Article 2 beyond the concise statement given in the Apostles Creed which says, I believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord. The Nicene Creed elaborates on this article by adding that the Son is eternally begotten of the Father. He is not made but is of the same substance as the Father which is further attested by the additional claims, God from God, light from light, true God from true God. This expansion of article 2 of the Apostles Creed addressed the controversy that was started by Arius and that lead to the First Council of Nicaea.

Article 8 of the Apostles Creed simply states that, I believe in the Holy Spirit. In the Nicene Creed this article is also expanded based on the results of the First Council of Constantinople where the Holy Spirit is defined as consubstantial with the Father and the Son making this creed fully Trinitarian. The Nicene Creed as expressed today also states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. This clause is known as the filioque which is a Latin word meaning and the Son. The filioque was added by the Latin Church in the sixth century to affirm the equal standing of the Father and the Son and that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both of them. The Holy Spirit may also be thought of as the love that exists between the Father and the Son. The Eastern Church opposed the addition of the filioque since they argued that it tampered with the original formulation of this creed. Ultimately the filioque was one of the reasons that lead to a split between the Western and Eastern Churches in 1054 AD.

To conclude then, the historical development of the Nicene Creed reflects how the church settled the fascinating controversy started by Arius that concerned the person of Jesus Christ. Since that time, the Apostles’ and the Nicene creeds have served as summaries of the Christian faith reflecting the development of its doctrine over the past 2000 years. These Creeds were necessary to address the numerous heresies and challenges that have faced the Church throughout its history. The creeds themselves also serve us today as an excellent reference for reflecting on our faith and what we believe.  ( © 2009 Ronald L. Fournier)