Hello friends, my name is Jeremy McCandless and welcome to A History of the Christian Church. Episode 10 today and we're going to take a look at the First Council of Nicaea. As a little bit of context, I'm a retired Baptist minister.
However, I did study the history of the Christian church as part of my theological training many years ago and it is upon this that I have built this podcast. So welcome to my history of the Christian church, a podcast series where we journey through time together to uncover the stories of the men and women who have shaped the story of the Christian church. on earth.
Today we're going to walk the ancient halls of the First Council of Nicaea. The year is 325 AD and the Christian world is at a crossroads. Emperor Constantine, seeking to unite his empire under one faith, calls for the first ever gathering of church leaders from across the whole Roman Empire and even beyond.
This historic event is known as the First Council of Nicaea and it aimed to forge consensus on matters of doctrine and establish a unified Christian faith. Among the attendees are notable figures such as Alexander of Alexandria and Eusebius of Antioch whose theological perspective are those that will shape the discussions held there. It has to be said the council was actually overwhelmingly Eastern in influence, with some might say fairly limited representation from the Western Church. However, the Assembly took the opportunity to grapple with many wide-ranging discussions, from everyday living arrangements of clergy to the critical theological questions for which it had been called, particularly those concerning the nature of Christ and the appearance of a new doctrine called Christianity.
Arianism. Conflicting views were arising across the Christian world on the nature of Christ, with proponents like Athenathus advocating for a unified understanding of Christ's essence as holy, God of God if you like, while others such as Arius argued that he held a subordinate position to God the Father. Despite the council's intention to achieve unity, divisions persisted and theological debates continued long after its conclusion.
Now while the Nicene Creed which emerged from it has become a defining statement of faith, the Council's legacy remains contentious with ongoing disputes over the doctoral interpretations that arose and continued. So join us today as we explore the continuing impact of the First Council of Nicaea and its implications for the Christian faith on the history, of the Christian Church broadcast. It's important to say that the Council of Nicaea primarily met in a response to the teaching of Arius.
Arius was a presbyter at Alexander. Like Origen, before him he believed that the Father is greater than the Son, who in turn is greater than the Holy Spirit. But unlike Origen, Arius did not believe that it was possible to have any form of hierarchy.
of what could be defined as divine beings. So he added on to Oregon's theology a sort of radical monotheism and concluded that the Father alone was God. The Son is the one whom the Father created the universe, but nonetheless, even saying that, he still himself was only a creature made out of nothing, not of God's substance himself. And as a created being, He was not eternal. That also meant that he had a beginning.
There was once a time when Jesus was not, so to speak. Arius himself accurately identified that these were the real, true key points and the crux of the debate, declaring that we are persecuted because we say the Son had a beginning, and likewise because we say that he was made out of nothing. So, Arius knew the stakes that were involved here. Now modern examples of Arian theology still exist today and are found in any non-trinitarian Christian denomination or sect that rejects the traditional doctrine of the Trinity and instead are finding themselves holding similar beliefs to those of Arius.
Some contemporary Christian groups such as the Jehovah's Witness as well as the Unitarian churches and certain branches of even the Pentecostal group, the Church of God. Certain people on the margins of that group and others still today reject the Trinitarian theology in favour of a theology that aligns more closely with Arianism. Arius himself was opposed by his own bishop, Alexander, but he appealed wider to other bishops, particularly in the East, and was supported by a number of followers of the likes of Oregon who had gone down a similar route. route but a more radical route to Oregon himself as well as some moderates such as Eusebius of Caesarea who was overall aiming I would suggest for church unity as his primary motivation.
Anyway in 324 when Constantine became emperor of Rome, a Roman empire that at that time was straddling both the east and the west, he felt impelled to intervene and he called this council of Nicaea. which met in June of the following year, 325, under his chairmanship. Although some scholars suggest religious motivations, many others would say Constantine's primary concern was probably just an attempt to maintain imperial unity across his empire.
By calling the council, he aimed to prevent division within his empire and promote Christianity, or a single vision of Christianity, as that unifying religion across. his sphere of influence. Constantine's calling of this council and his involvement in it forever transformed the relationship between the church and the state.
And now we will see that only the emperor would have the authority to convene such worldwide religious assemblies. About 220 bishops were said to be present, mostly from the east. Later tradition interestingly swelled the number to 318, probably derived from Genesis chapter 14, 14 where Abraham is seen to call together a council of men to go and try and rescue Lot.
Anyway, this council ultimately condemned Arius and produced what is fundamentally an anti-Arian creed of faith, the Creed of Nicaea. Not to be confused with the so-called Nicene Creed which originated at the Council of Constantinople approximately 60 years later in 381 which although very similar just sort of how can we say it in modern times dotted the i's and crossed the t's on the previous earlier creed anyway here is it in full quotation it says 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 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 with the Father, through whom all things came into being, things in heaven and things on earth, who because of us, ma'am, and because of our salvation came down and became incarnate and became a man and suffered and rose again on the third day and ascended to the heavens and we will come to judge the living and the dead and in the holy spirit but as those who say there was when he was not and before he was born he was not and that he came into existence out of nothing or assert that the son of god is of a different hypostasis or substance or created, or is subject to alteration or change, these the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes. Now you can see the core of that appearing in many, certainly the first half of it, in many church statements of faith and creeds to this day. Now, it's important to note that before the formation of this creed at the Council of Nicaea, a basic pattern for creeds in the Eastern Church anyway had already emerged.
Now, though the precise wording varied among those churches a little, the Creed of Nicaea stands as being very similar to those previous earlier creeds, but with the several clearly anti-Aryan phrases added. You see, Arius, had interpreted the traditional biblical phrase begotten of the Father to mean Jesus Christ was created by the Father and created out of nothing. This interpretation was excluded from this creed by the explanatory clause affirming that Jesus Christ came from the substance from the Father. Arius had asserted that only the Father is true God.
Nicaea countered by affirming Jesus Christ as true God from true God. Jesus is begotten, not made, it says. He is the Son of God. He is not a creature.
The distinction between being begotten of the Father and being a created being lies at the very heart of this controversy. Some would say it is akin to the difference between having a child and creating or building a robot. Jesus shares one substance with the Father.
The Greek term homosesis, consubstantial in the Creed, was indeed contentious, but it was deemed necessary to thwart what was viewed as Arian's manipulation and misrepresentation of Scripture. So what we find is a non-scriptural term being employed to safeguard the scriptural definition of Christ's deity. The Creed also refute several other Arian assertions, particularly one regarding the Son of God being created, what is called ex nihilo, out of nothing. Specific statements and phrases are inserted in the Creed specifically to refute Arianism.
Phrases like, Jesus being described as light from light, true God from true God. It's all about emphasising his divinity. He is declared to be begotten, with the added on, not made.
asserting his status as the true son of God, not merely a creation by God. The creed also proclaims that Jesus Christ as being of one substance with the Father, in other words, indicating their total equality in divinity. Now, as well as scribing the version of the creed and dealing with these majorists, the Council of Nicaea also established over 20 new church laws, known as canons.
which included let me give you some examples of the provisions there was the prohibition of clergy's self-castration yes that was starting to happen a radical misinterpretation of the mortification of the flesh was appearing also the council set a minimum term for catchments in other words those awaiting baptism through who would be expected to go through a period of study and preparation it also set a prohibition of how faithful but celibate individuals living together in non-legalised partnerships should be addressed. There was a requirement issued for all future bishops to be ordained and confirmed. Also, there was a call, a mandate issued that there should be two annual regional synods.
And the regions were decided with confirmation of special authority given to the bishops of Alexandria, Rome and Antioch. There was also recognition of special honorary rights for the bishopric of Jerusalem. Provision for the agreement for readmission of the Novatian sect was also decided upon, as well as standards set for ordination and the examination and testing of qualification of elders. Sworn testimony on behalf of elders who was lapsed were allowed under a given criteria so that mercy could be shown.
towards these lapsed individuals but also one might say showing a less willingness to be compassionate was the excommunication of all military deserters even those seeking reinstatement there was also a criteria established for the acceptance back into communion of those having fulfilled a period of penitence and there was a defined waiting period for any lapsed catchments people who had dropped out of the discipleship programme of being baptised. There was also a restriction issued on clergy having the authority to officiate in neighbouring cities and regions outside their own area. and also there was the nullification of any ordinance that were carried out by unordained wandering clergy also a rule was issued on the prohibition of usury in other words the lending among between and by the clergy and the precedence of those in the role of bishop over the presbyters was fully established and described there was also the declaration of a statement regarding the invalidity of baptism by identified heretical sects. And strangely to my mind, finally, the ending of kneeling on Sundays and during Pentecost was prohibited. They said they wanted to emphasize standing as now the normative posture of prayer during specific festive periods.
Anyway, all these canons were clearly aimed to ensure a level of uniformity and discipline within and across the whole church empire. Now while Nicaea can be seen as the first of what are called the ecumenical councils, it still in fact didn't entirely resolve the debate in Christ's deity, but rather sparked further discussions and further creeds and councils down the line, which no doubt we shall look at later. But importantly, Arius was condemned at Nicaea, particularly for his rejection of Jesus as being holy of the substance of God. The Emperor's endorsement of this term, likely influenced by his Western ecclesiastical advisors and bishops, signalled a shift towards a defined form of Trinitarian understanding of God. Now that idea was initially, it seems, more readily accepted fully in the Western Church before spreading and being endorsed in the East.
You see, in the East, particularly among people like Eusebius of Caesarea, who Musaeus was met with some scepticism. They feared it would lead to either a materialistic understanding of God or what is called modalism, blurring the distinctions within the Trinity. This disagreement could be said to have split the Church into two main groups for a time, the Nicene party, clear on Christ's deity but less so on the Trinity's internal distinctions, and the Arians, who stressed the Trinity's unity but undoubted Christ's full deity. Along with a wider group who fully accepted the position of the Creed. The Nicene party didn't deny the Father, Son, Holy Spirit distinction, but didn't emphasise it as much as the Arians wished to, leading them to perceive the Nicenes as leaning towards what is called monocarnism, in other words, seeing God as sovereign king above all others.
This clash reflects the dates between, I suppose, the two-half truth interpretation. for those in an alternate position to that declared by the Creed. The Nicene affirmation of Christ's full deity and eternal distinctiveness from the Father versus the Arian insistence on his subordination in his role before Father God. Due to maybe what was nothing less than a misunderstanding, polarization continues with these two parties confronting each other for nearly half a century. Now traditionally this is often dubbed the Arian controversy but that is somewhat inaccurate.
The primary dispute was in fact between those who were close to embracing the Nicaean creed and the Arians with Arianism serving as a catalyst rather than as a major participant after the creed was issued across the Christian world at that time. But by 350, an extreme Arian fraction had emerged, asserting that Jesus the Son was fundamentally, in fact, unlike the Father, and this jolted the Nicaeans into realising the necessity of clarifying Christ's status across the Christian world. In response, figures like Athanasius and others from the Nicaean camp tried to make some conciliatory gestures, paving the way for perhaps a compromise formula that would integrate insights. from both sides this resulted in the affirmation that the father son and holy spirit are of one substance with each other a position that was later fully endorsed and ratified by the council of constantinople just a generation later over all while the council of nicaea addressed significant theological issues through its resolutions it did not immediately resolve the underlying tensions across the church. Indeed, the post-Nicene period immediately after it saw continuing theological debates, some might say even ecclesiastical conflicts, and the intertwining of religious and secular power.
It has to be said that the Nicene Creed still stands today as a cornerstone of Christian doctrine. It has shaped the belief of millions around the world. However, from a Protestant standpoint, there are some notable critiques within it worth exploring. One significant point of contention lies in the Nicene Creed formulation of the Trinity. Whilst Evangelicals and Protestants would fully affirm the triune nature of God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, they often would want to emphasise the simplicity and clarity of Scripture over coming up with such complex theological formulations to try and find solutions to what are essentially philosophical theological questions.
Nisim's Creed's precise language regarding the relationship between the Father and the Son, particularly the phrase begotten not made, has been subject to scrutiny over the years. and some evangelicals argue that such terminology risks us veering into what is called speculative theology rather than just staying grounded in the straightforward biblical interpretation in the word of God, in other words. Moreover, I suppose you would say that the Nicene Creed's historical context raises concerns for some, even to this day.
Remember, it's crafted in the fourth century amid intense theological debates. It is in reality, some would say, simply a reflection of the merging of various theological perspectives, rather than just a direct, unfiltered interpretation of Scripture. Evangelicals and Protestants since the Reformation who had prioritized the principle sola scriptura, Scripture alone, the belief in Scripture as the ultimate authority, well, some question the extent to which the Nicene Creed aligns with the straightforward teaching of the Bible. Many would say the Bible stands without needing human intervention or influence from a philosophical perspective.
Additionally, the Creed's emphasis on the term described as the one holy Catholic and apostolic church has given rise to some apprehension among certain peoples on the wings of Protestantism. Now, it's important to note the term Catholic in the context historically simply refers to the universal nature of the church. Some evangelicals even today perceive it as potentially conflating with Roman Catholicism.
Now given the historical and theological differences between evangelical Protestantism and Roman Catholicism, this aspect of the Nicene Creed does indeed prompt, shall I say, caution or discomfort. among some evangelicals and Protestants even to this day. But this lies not in the use of the word itself, but how it is seen to be often understood by many modern-day Roman Catholics as applying only to them. Evangelicals, of course, would tend to prioritise a more personal, experiential and individually accountable relationship with God through Jesus Christ. So while the Nicene Creed articulates essential doctrinal truths, it may be perceived by some as lacking an emphasis on this individual's faith and the individual's salvation and our individual accountability before God, rather than simply through the ordinances of the church.
And that's a common characterisation among those of evangelical and Protestant theology. Some might rightly say that the Creed's focus on doctrinal precision can potentially overshadow the transformative power of a personal encounter with Christ. But despite these critiques, it is essential to recognise the historical significance and theological richness of this Nicene Creed. It has served as a unifying confession of faith for centuries, fostering doctrinal unity among many diverse people. Christian traditions.
Some evangelicals and Protestants will offer critiques, but nearly all within those traditions still appreciate the Creed's role in effectively articulating the core Christian beliefs and even fostering, some might say, bridge building and theological understanding across different cultures. So in conclusion, I would like to say that whilst the Nicene Creed holds a revered place in Christian tradition, it's important to realize that it is a created document. It is not the Bible, Holy Scripture itself. Therefore, it is not exempt from scrutiny. However, by engaging in a thoughtful approach, a critique, a dialogue, everyone together can contribute to a deeper understanding of Christian doctrine, whilst I would say at the same time remain rooted in the authority of scripture and the centrality of Christ, which after all, that's what it's trying to express.
You know, the 4th century debate about the person of Jesus Christ may seem remote to us today, given the unfamiliar terminology it uses when you actually read the original creed translated from its original language. It can even appear like an obscure philosophical argument to some. However, I believe it's important to note at its core, It attempts to answer a fundamental question that is central to the Christian faith. That is, is Jesus Christ merely a superior creature dispatched by God, or is he the very revelation of God himself? Does John 3.16, in stating that God gave his only begotten son, imply that he was just simply another created creature?
In some sense, no different to you or I. You see, the deity of Christ stands as the bedrock of genuine Christian faith. Without it, there can be no true revelation of God or understanding of salvation. So my final statement on this would be to say that Arianism remains as one of the pivotal issues in the history of theology and was a fundamental attack on orthodoxy and our understanding of not only the Christian faith, but Christ himself as God. And I personally believe, in my opinion, that these early church fathers were absolutely correct in emphatically affirming the full deity of Jesus Christ in opposition to this view that was emerging.
Thanks for being with me here today. Okay, people, that's it for today. Thanks for being with me.
You'll find a link to where the podcast is posted in the episode notes, but, of course, you can subscribe to wherever you get your podcasts from. And by doing so, you'll not miss any new episodes when I drop them. If you've got a minute, have a look at the Patreon community.
They're the people who are supporting this ministry. And if you like, in a sense, some of them even choosing to pay forward so new episodes can be created and made available across all. main podcast networks. You'll also find links there to the other podcasts I do, the main one being Bible Project Daily Podcast, which is a 10-year project to work through the whole Bible chapter by chapter, verse by verse, and hopefully approach it and explain it, not only in a way that takes account of the culture in which it was written, but also explains what these foundational texts of history still mean to many around the world today. So with that said, we leave it there today.
Thanks for being with me and I do hope I'll see you back here again when I drop a new episode. And in a sense, we'll take a step back and return to looking at the important individuals involved in these debates at this point in the 4th century. And we'll actually spend some time studying this guy, Athanasius, the church father, who in a sense, a key man in the creation of this creed. but also a key man in the history of the church in defining the deity of Christ.
Hopefully, that episode will drop soon. Thanks for joining me here today. Bye-bye for now.