Subtitled : A Tale of Two Councils
(Well really more councils than that… but let’s not get bogged down)
Last time we looked at ‘Doctrines, Dogmatics and Theology’ - the building blocks of Confessions. This time we come to our first confession, held by the church universal as authoritative (although with a little modification by the Orthodox Churches of the East) – The Nicene Creed.
In the Bible, particularly the letters of John, you get a few hints that not all was plain sailing when it came to describing exactly who Jesus was and how his life related to the life of God. (see: 2 John 7-9). And where did the Holy Spirit fit into the picture?
Bear in mind that what we are dealing with is words. Words can mean different things at different times, yet they remain essential to how we understand things. When we speak about ‘God’ we are attempting to translate mystery into human speech. O. Weber speaks of definitions as “an attempt to bring human speech into the presence of the mystery.”
Let’s firstly read the Nicene Creed.
"I believe in one God,the Father almighty,maker of heaven and earth,of all things visible and invisible.
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,the Only Begotten Son of God,born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,true God from true God,begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven,and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,he suffered death and was buried,and rose again on the third dayin accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.He will come again in gloryto judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,who proceeds from the Father and the Son,who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,who has spoken through the prophets.
I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen."
Now let us go back in time as best as we can. To a time when words such as ‘Logos’ (meaning the 'Word') and ‘Substance’ and ‘Flesh’ are being thrown around. To a time when the Roman Emperor Constantine has put an end to church persecution by adopting Christianity as the State religion of the Empire and he has a problem. If Christianity was to unite the empire then it had to speak with one voice. Two groups in particular where in strong disagreement.
The first group is headed by a church leader called Arius who along with Eusebius of Nicodea is in great disagreement with a second group, headed by Bishop Alexander of Alexandria and the theologian Athanasius. Whilst these two parties are the main antagonists, there also exists a large Middle Group, maybe best represented by Eusebius of Ceaserea one of the earliest church historians.
What is at stake in the opposing arguments are views of God that have a dramatic impact on how we see salvation. If Jesus was not fully man, could He really understand what it’s like to be human? Yet if he was not fully God, then didn’t the disciples make a huge mistake worshiping Him, and how did His death on the Cross achieve anything other than being just another example of a life well-lived that ended in tragedy?
Rumbling behind these questions are others about theology itself. How much should the insights of philosophy be permitted to define the understanding of doctrines and beliefs? Who should have the last say Plato or Paul, Socrates or Scripture? You can understand why Constantine was more than a little concerned!
It’s the year 325. The city of Nicea is teeming with tourists, merchants, and beggars. Why? Because the emperor has summoned the 318 bishops that represented the worldwide church to come together and seek common ground. What a mixed group! Many were scarred from persecutions, one with an eye put out, others who had been monks spending years as hermits in caves and forests, others who held office in large urban areas and had seen their churches grow.
Constantine apparently chooses the city of Nicaea because its name means “Victory.” As he approaches in all his finery the assembled body rises as one to greet him. In his opening speech he calls on the assembly to put away all causes of strife and prays that the Holy Spirit might guide their deliberations to a harmonious conclusion.
Arius commences his argument by asserting that there was only One God, a point all were in agreement upon. The ‘Son of God’ he suggested could not be of the same substance as the Father but must have been created out of nothing. If Jesus was of the same nature, that was equivalent to saying that there were two Gods, not one.
Bishop Alexander disagreed by proposing that God was a single unit. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit were three different ways of God’s self-expression. Christ was of ‘one substance’ – homoousios – with the Father.
Arius then argued, drawing upon the Greek philosophical tradition that the Son was the ‘Logos’ – the Word of God. How could the Logos be of the same substance? No... the Logos had to be a different substance .
Bishop Alexander responded by asking “How can the Son change?” He quoted scriptures such as “I am in the Father and the Father in me” and “I and the Father are One” to support his one substance argument.
As the council daily progressed things became heated. So heated that there was a song, set to a bawdy tune, circulating that roughly translated went:
“Arius of Alexandria, I’m the talk of the town,
Friend of Saints, elect of heaven, full of learning and renown,
If you want some Logos-Doctrine, I’ll serve it hot and hot,
God begat him and before he was begotten, HE WAS NOT!”
Athanasius, the theologian supporting Alexander, argued that God was not identical with nature. God was the source of all being (the Creator) and the orderer of the universe (The Logos). He accused Arius of presenting philosophy that pretended to be theology. Theology was about scripture, and he warned that Arius’s philosophical interpretation put salvation in jeopardy.
Constantine then asked by Eusebius of Ceaserea, the historian who represented a middle view to intervene. He proposed a creedal statement that had been used in his own diocese.
We believe in One God, the Father almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible. And in One Jesus Christ, the Logos of God, God from God, light from light, life of life, Son only-begotten, first-begotten of all creation, begotten before all ages from the Father, through Whom all things came into being, Who because of our salvation was incarnate and dwelt among men, and suffered and rose again on the third day, and ascended to the Father, and will come again in glory to judge the living and dead. We believe also in the Holy Spirit.
As the statement was read, heads nodded in approval. Except for Alexander and Athanasius. The Arian's were happy with saying ‘God from God’ as it accommodated their idea of the Son of God being of a ‘different substance.”
Amendments were proposed. “the true image and power of the Father”; “in all things like the Father”. But Alexander and Athanasius wanted a definition that specifically said “Same Substance”. Constantine’s patience had now worn out. He made his verdict.
“one substance” – homoousios was in.
Arius was cast out.
Council Dismissed.
What had been asserted was that Jesus Christ was truly Divine.
But that’s not where it ends!
Emperors don’t live for ever. When Constantine’s son, Constantinius came to power he was sympathetic to the views of Arius. So, the tables slowly turned. Arius was reinstated, Athanasius was in exile and those in the middle could see another huge split on the horizon. Another council was called in 385. Again, debate was heated, but (after Athanasius returned from exile) the verdict this time was on the basis of a compromise.
Instead of “one substance” – homo-ousios
“Of like/Similar substance” homo-i-ousios
The Greek letter ‘i’ – iota – defined the difference
Enter another figure – Bishop Apollinarius of Laodecia.
The problem he wrestled with was the nature of Christ’s mind and soul. He came to the conclusion that although the flesh of Jesus was one with God (one substance” – homo-ousios) from the moment of conception, His mind and soul were that of the “Logos” of God. This time it was the humanity of Jesus rather than the divinity that was under question.
Three theologians, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory Nazianzus, took issue with such a view. If Jesus wasn’t really human, but only appeared to be so and the incarnation was a sham, then He really couldn’t help humanity a great deal. Scripture rather taught that Christ wept, that he suffered and experienced the whole range of human experience.
In 380 the latest emperor, Theodore, ordered another council. At this one were the followers of Arius, those who followed Athanasius, those who supported the compromise of homo-i-ousios, as well as the supporters of Apollinaruis .
This council did nothing to substantially change the Creed but stressed that Christ was truly made man, reinstated ‘homousios’ over ‘homo-i-ousious’ and added a section that talked of the relation of the Holy Spirit to the Trinity.
The process finally came to a conclusion at the Council of Chalcedon in 491 when the ‘Nicene Creed’ became official church doctrine!
Nicea affirmed the Jesus was Divine
Constantinople affirmed he was human.
At Ephesus a further council affirmed Jesus Christ was one integrated person.
At Chalcedon it was settled that Jesus had two natures, divine and human.
All went well till the Middle Ages when a council added something called the 'filioque clause' – which suggested that the Spirit proceeded from both the Father and the Son. This caused a huge split between the Western Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches.
Conclusions
The Creed addresses two important issues: ‘The Person of Jesus Christ’ and ‘The reality of the Holy Spirit’
Jesus Christ is the center of Christian Faith. The Nicene Creed expresses the churches understanding of what Scripture teaches about who Jesus Christ is. "*If God actually came in the flesh of a human being and if that God/person lived, suffered and died and rose again for our sakes, then we can be united to God." This the church has affirmed since its earliest days.
The Creed also affirms the person and deity of the Holy Spirit and the unity of the Spirit with the Father and the Son.
Sometimes the accusation is made that the Doctrine of the Person of Christ is not in the scriptures. True, it’s not stated as a verse. Yet implicit to a Christian understanding of Scripture is the acceptance that the Son is both 100% human and 100% Divine.
To put all that in contemporary language the Nicene Creed says : “*Whatever God is, Jesus is that; and whatever humanity is, Jesus is that too, in one whole person.”
(*Jack Rogers).
Next time... The Apostles Creed.