The Doctrine of the Trinity in the Early ChurchThe Council of Nicea
In 323 Constantine gained sole control over the entire Roman Empire, an empire that was greatly divided over the debate between Arius and Alexander. In order to bring unity to the empire, Constantine ordered a council to resolve the matter at Nicea in 325, organized by Bishop Hosius of Cordova, a follower of Athanasius. The council was made up of three distinct groups. Arius was not a bishop, so Eusebius of Nicomedia represented the Arians in general, though his views were more extreme. The Alexandrians, following the views of Alexander and Athanasius, stood in staunch opposition to the Arians. The final group, the majority of attendees, did not fully understand the issues and simply desired peace. Eusebius read the views of his party in their most extreme form, and as a result the council drafted a creed meant to crush the teachings of Arianism.
The Nicene Creed. The statement drafted on the 19th of June, 325, began with a strong statement of monotheism, “We believe in one God.” Against Arius’ definition of begotten, which he took to mean “created,” the Nicene Creed differentiated the terms by stating that the Son of God was “begotten, not made.” Additionally, the Son was declared homoousia with the Father, from the Greek homo, “same,” and ousio, “substance, nature or essence.” This was a clear affirmation of the Son’s deity (though as will be seen below the term caused a lot of confusion between the Eastern and Western bishops). The final denunciation against Arius lay in the closing portion of the Creed, “But those who say there was when He was not…these the Catholic Church anathematizes.” The Council was solely concerned with settling the debate over the deity of Christ, and thus regarding the Holy Spirit they simply wrote “We believe…in one Holy Spirit.”
The Aftermath of the Council. Unfortunately, the Council of Nicea did not completely resolve the debate over Arianism. The problem surrounded the use of the Greek homoousia, which the council used to describe the relationship between the Son and the Father. The Western theologians understood the term as Tertullian had used it, to mean unity of substance or essence. The Eastern theologians understood it only to affirm the divinity of the Son, and thus feared that it left the door open for Modalism. This misunderstanding of terminology prevented the church from being able to completely do away with the Arian heresy, and left the door open for the Arians to remain a prominent group of theologians.
The Arians set out discrediting their opponents after the council, finally winning the approval of Constantine on his deathbed in 336. Constantine’s son, Constantius, became a defender of Arianism in the eastern portion of the Roman Empire. The opponents of Nicea, primarily Arians, splintered into three distinct groups. The Anomoeans, extreme Arians, argued that the the Son was unlike the Father in every respect. The Homoeans, moderate Arians, taught that the Son was similar to Father, but refused to define exactly what they meant. Finally, many of the Eastern bishops who misunderstood the Nicene Creed’s use of homoousia became known as homoiousians. These theologians were comfortable referring to the Son as similar in substance to the Father, thus affirming Christ’s deity. This group formed as a result of the extreme teachings of both the Arians and Sabellians, which provided common ground for the Eastern and Western theologians to continue to discuss their views regarding the terminology of the Nicene Creed.
| . | Hannah, John, “HT200 Class Notes,”, 6.4. | | . | Ibid., 6.6. | | . | Ibid., 6.6. | | . | Bingham, Jeffrey, “HT200 Class Notes,”.
| | . | Gonzalez, Justo, A History of Christian Thought, Vol I, 280-282. |
|
About Us
Started by two college roommates with a few hand-me-down theology books.
Now a fun site to find out whether you're orthodox or heretical.
|