CONSTANTINE, COUNCILS
AND CREEDS
OUTBREAK TO NICEA (318-325 A.D.)
The first significant challenge of the Deity of Christ came by Paul of Samosata in 268 A.D. The Antiochine school of theologians to which he belonged rejected the equality of substance of Father and Son; believing the Son to be created. Lucian was the first Antiochine teacher of this view. Arius of Alexandria developed his teacher Lucian's subordinationism into a full blown system of thought in which he denied the eternal existence of the Logos and both the personality and the Deity of the Holy Spirit. Apparently one day in 318 A.D., at a teaching session, Bishop Alexander of Alexandria was teaching on the eternity of the Logos. Arius voiced his objection to the view, and after some days of debate, the presbyters of Alexandria agreed with Alexander. As a result, Arius was banned from the Alexandrian churches. He left the city and was well received by Eusebius of Nicodemia, whose theology agreed for the most part with him. Eusebius was a fellow student of Lucian of Antioch and of Eusebius of Caesarea. Although the theology of Eusebius of Caesarea was in fact opposed to Arius', his terminology did not agree with the main body of orthodoxy represented by Alexander. Eusebius of Caesarea thought of himself in agreement with Arius, though he later saw he was not.
The Eusebiuses both had strong ties with the Emperor Constantine and appealed to him for help for Arius. Constantine talked with representatives of both sides of the controversy, especially with Bishop Hosius of Cordova, a close friend and a longtime aide of Constantine, who supported the orthodox viewpoint of Alexander. Apparently, Constantine did not fully understand the theological issues very well at first, if at all. But he did understand that this problem caused a major division within Christianity; and as a Christian himself, he wished to see this brought to an end. He did all he could to restore unity without political force, but to no avail.
Finally, in the spring of 325 A.D., Constantine, with the encouragement of bishops from both sides, called for a conference of the leading bishops throughout the empire to discuss this and other matters. The council met in Nicea.
The role of the emperor in all this has long been the subject of great debate. It has been argued that his purpose was only political, the unification of a powerful force within the empire, namely the Christian Church. It is more likely, though, that both politics and religion were important to Constantine, for it appears that he inherited from his father an early tendency towards Christianity. His commitment was genuine because even in his later years he sought to be baptized and received it from Eusebius of Nicodemia.
We cannot assume that Constantine understood the issues involved in the dispute. His own opinions were probably more Arian than orthodox, at least at the start of the controversy. But his real desire was simply to believe the Christian faith and it was up to the Church to decide what that faith was. During the council, probably at the suggestion by Hosius, he proposed the addition of the word "homoeousios" (of one essence) to the creed submitted by Eusebius of Caesarea. This might make us think that he had begun to understand the issues, and had seen the truth of the orthodox position. This is possible, but not likely, for his later leanings were consistently Arian.
The Arian creed was soundly rejected by the vast majority of the attendees. Interestingly, most of the bishops present were from the East, where most of the Arians were found; very few bishops came from the West, although the West was solidly Trinitarian. Arius apparently left the council at that time, or was forced to leave. Eusebius of Nicodemia became the main defender of Arianism during the rest of the meetings. Following that, Eusebius of Caesarea proposed a creed to the council which won the general approval of the participants. Its language was scriptural but did not prevent misinterpretation, and that is precisely what the Arian party did with it. Constantine immediately intervened, praising the declaration as orthodox, and urged the bishops to subscribe to it. He felt that only one more word was necessary: "homoeousios". It is surely true that Constantine was the one who formally suggested the term, but it is quite probable, if not certain, he did so at the insistence, or at least the strong encouragement of Bishop Hosius and other orthodox leaders.
The term was not new since it was used by Origen nearly a century before. It was commonplace in orthodox theology, but the object of great scorn by the Arians. The term was crucially needed to prevent Arian misinterpretation.
Following the formal suggestion of the term, there erupted great debate at the council. There were 3 parties: (1) the true Arians who were vastly outnumbered, (2) the true Nicenes who were led by Alexander, Hosius, Eusebius and Athanasius, who outnumbered the Arians but who were still fewer than the third party. (3) the "homoeousians' were the large middle party; also called semi-Arians. Most of them were orthodox in faith even though their vocabulary was different. They argued that the Son was not the same nature as the Father; but a nature "like" the Father's. The formulation was bound to cause misinterpretation. Neither of the other two parties would accept this wording. Only a few held to the doctrine of Arius. Each party presented arguments to support its position.
It was at the Council of Nicea that Athanasius showed his great mental vigor and the promise of becoming the leader of the Nicene party. Though the "homoeousion" party began the council, they were decidedly outnumbered by the middle-of-the-road "homoeousians," the intellectual leadership of Athanasius quickly gave them the upper hand in debate, and many of the middles moved to their side. Athanasius and the orthodox leaders had to argue against two parties.
The great leader of the "homoeousians", Eusebius of Caesarea, signed the creed along with the major portion of his party. Perhaps the explanation of the "inconsistency" in Eusebius' doctrine is in the distinction between the logical and temporal priority. Since the Father generated the Son, He is therefore "before" the Son in the logical sense, though not in the temporal sense.
Although the Council of Nicea ended with a rousing paper victory for the orthodox, the victory was not to be complete until 56 years later at the Council of Constantinople. Shortly after the Council of Nicea, the Arians made a powerful comeback, taking the reins of power in the Church, at least in the East. They also gained the good favor of the emperor Constantine, who banned Athanasius in 335 A.D., and his son Constantius, who became emperor when Constantine died in 337 A.D., a year after the death of Arius. But even while the Arians were in power, they were not completely unified. By the year 362 A.D. the tables were again reversed, and orthodoxy was once again established. The later Councils of Constantinople and Chalcedon further ratified the Nicene Creed, providing the church with a theological standard as a test of faith and a protection against heresy.
ARIAN ASCENDANCY - (325-361 A.D.)
Arian triumph after Nicea was accomplished by means other than ecclesiastical. Appeals to the emperor, personally and politically, were explained by using ambiguous statements of faith. The 40 years following the Council of Nicea were the darkest hours of orthodoxy. But years proved the great strengthening ground for the Nicene formula and faith, and resulted in blessings. Almost immediately after the Council of Nicea, the Arians turned to political means to gain power.
The creed of Arianism was ambiguous and heretical, not so much for what it said, but for what it didn't say. Constantine, unfortunately, did not realize this and by the time he knew what happened, he had already committed himself to the Arian party. Arianism was an attractive religious system to emperors because its teachings implied that a creature could be divine. (a god), highly exalted and worshipped by the people. The focus was on the unity of the church, rather than the issue of what sort of God the church worshipped.
Violence and upheaval was a result of Arian supremacy. Athanasius was repeatedly banished from Alexandria. In the meantime, he wrote volumes about the Arians. There was extreme abuse and persecution of orthodoxy.
The Arian party knew that it did not represent neither the contemporary Church or the centuries of the Church which preceded it. The Arian claims were not in step with Christianity. However, orthodoxy was not dormant all this time and held councils and wrote letters and books.
Athanasius was the champion of the Nicene Creed and orthodoxy, which claimed that the Word (Logos) of God was not a creature. There were 3 persons of like substance; not separate.
UNION OF ORTHODOXY AND
THE FINAL VICTORY (362-381)
This Council spelled the death of Arianism after its rise under Constantine. The orthodox parties unified and ended the disagreements over word usage. The language of Trinitarianism was finally completely developed. Most important was that it was recognized by both parties that language it self was not of paramount importance, but what the language meant. And with this agreement, they were able to see that each side meant the same thing while saying it in different ways. So the spiritual victory of orthodoxy was completed by 362 A.D. The next 19 years were spent winning the outward victory - removing Arianism from ecclesiastical and political power.
The task was not easy. The Emperor Valens (reigned 364-378 A.D.) was a fanatical Arian and heavily persecuted the orthodox party. He forced Bishops into exile and handed over their sees to Arians; used physical torment against some, and attempted to make Arianism the final victor in ecclesiastical circles. It became increasingly difficult for the orthodox to worship openly.
Arianism continued to decline in spiritual, intellectual, and moral strength, and with the decline came a loss of support among the common members of the Church. The support of the emperor, great and powerful as it was, could not hope to counterbalance the weight of the decisions of the Church as a body. During the reign of Gratian, the successor to Valens, the orthodox party made great gains in winning back sees. for Gratian was completely disinterested in ecclesiastical affairs, and the Church was free to govern her own life. By now "the Church" had become almost synonymous with the orthodox party, for the majority of members agreed with them against the Arian leadership.
The orthodox bishops and the emperor called the Council at Constantinople, which met in 381, to make final and official the triumph of the Nicene faith. The main purpose of the Council was simply to ratify the Nicene Creed and recognize its place as the confession of the Catholic Church. Constantinople thus marked the final and complete victory of orthodoxy over Arianism in the Church within the Roman Empire and for the most part, outside it as well.
The Council of Constantinople not only marked the victory of orthodoxy over heresy, but also pronounced the independence of the Church from the state. At first glance it might appear that the only reason orthodoxy finally won is that Emperor Theodosius I was orthodox. But this is not really the case. The Church had conquered the throne; not vice versa. The constant characteristic of Arianism from beginning to end was dependence on imperial might for protection and power.
It was not by the power of the empire that orthodoxy won. Had Theodosius not been a Nicene, Arianism would have died under the weight of the orthodox arguments anyway. Orthodoxy had defeated heresy in the past without the help of the emperor, and in time it would have defeated this foe as well.
The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed comes at the end of three-and-a-half centuries of battle against gnosticism, neo-platonism, subordinationism, polytheism, Monarchianism, and finally Arianism, each with many forms. It expresses the faith taught in the New Testament as contrasted with all the variations offered by the unorthodox in the past who failed to represent that faith accurately. The Nicene Creed stands as the great hallmark of truly Christian trinitarianism against all pseudo-Christian trinities.
THE CREED OF NICEA - Nicea 325 A.D.
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things, visible and invisible.
And in one Lord, JESUS CHRIST, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, [the only-begotten, that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance (homoeousion) with the Father; by whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth], who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; he suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; from thence he will come to judge the quick and the dead.
And in the HOLY GHOST.
[But those who say "There was a time when he was not," and "He was not before he was made," or "He was made out of nothing," or "He is of another substance" or "essence" or "The Son of God is created," or "Changeable" they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic church.]
THE NICENE CREED - (Constantinople, 381 A.D.)
We believe in one God, the FATHER Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord JESUS CHRIST, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (eons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten; not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made, who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man. He was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father, from thence he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.
And in the HOLY GHOST, the Lord and the Giver of Life, and proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spake by the prophets. In the holy Catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.
ATHANASIAN CREED
- written early 5th century
...the Catholic Faith is this:
That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance (essence). For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one: the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father incomprehensible (unlimited); the Son incomprehensible (unlimited); and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible (unlimited). The Father eternal; the son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; not three incomprehensibles (infinites); but one uncreated; and one incomprehensible (infinite). So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty, and the Holy ghost Almighty. And yet there are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God; the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet there are not three Gods, but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Ghost is Lord. And yet there are not three Lords, but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord. So are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say: there are three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The son is of the Father alone; not made; not created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made nor created, not begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is alone, or after another; none is greater or less than another (there is nothing before, or after: nothing greater or less). But the whole three Persons are co-eternal; and co-equal. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, must (let him) thus think of the Trinity.