A Brief Introduction to the Council of Nicaea I, 325

                                                                                       by Alex Pak

Introduction

The council was the first of seven ecumenical councils in the ancient church history. The calling of the council marked a triumphant church that survived many persecutions and repressions. However, as soon as the church was established its legitimacy in the empire, it found itself a new challenge; this time the challenge came not from outside, but it came from within the church.  It was a theological interpretation issue. Church had to sort out among many loosely interpreted sayings to church’s orthodox teaching on the nature of Christ the Son of God. The time has come for a church to deal and formulate the orthodox doctrine for the many generations to adhere to.  Soon after apostles wrote the gospels and letters, people began to interpret them and had various understandings. One of the issues was on what Christ said about himself and who he really was. And different churches and traditions had different beliefs, interpretations and understandings on the Bible and its interpretations. As a result, all the ancient seven councils dealt with the interpretation of nature and status of Christ and his pre-existent relationship with the Father, and the use of icons in the church. 

Background

The cause of the Arian controversy, which brought about the council of 325, stemmed on Arius’ teaching on nature and relationship of the Son and the Father. 
The start of the Arian debate was probably occurred in the city of Baucalis, where he was a presiding priest in 318. (Kelly, 231)
He was trying to preserve a monotheistic understanding of the God in the Old Testament in light of the Anti-Arian’s view of the Son as being the co-equal and co-existence with the Father. Issue of the day was not whether the Father was God, but how is that the Son is God? This question has been asking by many long before the council of Nicaea, 325.  Paul of Samosata of Antioch taught that God adopted the Son, which is called adoptionism (dynamic moarchianism). He wanted to defend uniqueness of the God.  Philo of Alexandria, who was a famous Jewish exegete, influenced Arius. Origen also taught adoptionism of the Son, but unlike Arius Origen taught the Son had no beginning and was not created being.  For many early Christians, who were mainly from Judaism background, the question was a problem for the understanding of the monotheistic system of the Jewish religion and new belief in the Son of God.  Many wanted to safeguard the unique characteristics of the Father as the only God.  

Various Beliefs in the Empire

And there were other challenges that also faced the early believers. It came from the pagan religions of the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire already had an official state religion, it was directed to the emperor himself. Further, it had a tolerant policy toward other beliefs and religions as well. According to Davis, “religious belief within this far-flung ranged from a lofty but nebulous pantheism to primitive animism.” (Davis. 17) Roman’s pantheon is a good example. Pantheon means “every god”. It tolerated as many religions and beliefs as long as they did not cause disturbances within the empire. Arius and his followers wanted to focus on theology of Paul of Samosata’s monarchial understanding of the Father God. They simply wanted to adhere to the teaching of God as uncreated while the Logos/the Son created being.

In the midst of various views of the Son’s nature and status, the time for defining the orthodox Christology was ready. This important issue was to deal by the newly crowned Constantine came to the throne. 

Constantine the Great (c. 274-337)

After Constantine became the sole ruler of the Roman Empire in 324, he wanted to rule peacefully.   But there was a disturbance brewing in the North African churches.  Constantine received an appeal to intervene in the affair of a schismatical movement called the Donatists controversy. After successful resolution, he was ready to tackle another more important theological controversy. This was called “The Council of Nicaea, I, 325.”

When the Arian controversy was broke out, Constantine wanted to get involve right away. Because it threatened the tranquility of the realm, which he was ruling. And also it caused a schism among the churches. Williams, “Arius mistake was to emphasize the numerical strength of his support, especially in Libya. Constantine assumed that Arius was threatening a schism, the one thing which all the imperial efforts were designed to avoid.” (Williams, 77) Calling him, “Ares”, a god of war. (77) 

Evidently the emperor did not like his realm turned into another battleground. So he called a council to smooth things out while still there is a chance of reconciliation. 

In 325, Constantine the Great himself convened and presided the council at Nicaea near Bithynia. He wanted to settle growing Arian dispute, after failing of a settlement among the church leaders. This he tried by sending his advisor Hosius of Cordova in 324 in Antioch.  Constantine felt that he was obligated to see the controversy settled quickly and bring the unity both in church and society.

Council of 324 was a rehearsal for the Nicaea council. The Number of delegates was 318 and they were mostly from the East. The key figures were Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, and Arius, a presbyter of Alexandria. Eastern Leaders of Anti-Arian side were Athanasius of Alexandria, Eustathius of Antioch, Marcellus of Ancyra (Modern Turkish Ankara) and Macarius of Jerusalem.

Arian side was Eusebius of Palestinian Caesarea, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis of Nicaea, Maris of Chalcedon and Secundus the Libyan and Theognas the Libyans.

Arius (c. 256-336) 

Who was Arius? He was born in Libya about 256, and was educated under Lucian of Antioch, who was martyred in 312.  Later he became an elderly priest in Alexandria.  He was also influenced by Philo of Alexandria (c. died 50) and this may explain his insistence on monotheism. (Davis, 51) 

When the controversy had broke out, Arius was already an old man. According to Rowan Williams, “ If Epiphannius is to be relied on as regards Arius’ place of birth, , is he also to be trusted when he describes Arius an ‘old man’ (geron) at the time of the outbreak of the controversy?”(Williams, 31) It fits his skilled rhetorical skills and vast knowledge of his subjects.  He also had many followers and devotees. 

The key Issues of the controversy were nature and status of Christ in relationship with the Father.  Arius taught that Jesus was created being that given the special status “Son of God” by the Father. Williams notes, “Taken as a whole, these citations had apparently been used by Arius an his followers to establish three basic theological points: (i) The Son is a creature, that is, a product of God’s will; (ii) ‘Son’ is therefore a metaphor for the second hypostasis, and must be understood in the light of comparable, metaphorical usage in Scripture; (iii) The Son’s status, like his very existence, depends upon God’s will.”(Williams, 109) For Arius’ teaching was based on his desire to safeguard the Fatherhood as the only God.  So he had to formulate such that the Logos/Son is a creature. 

Arius teachings were one of the many loosely interpretations of Christ’s nature at that time. But what he brought to the church was a new teaching that Christ was a creature and had a beginning. Many of his thoughts and remaining writings were found in the Thalia, (or so called, banquet) which is a loosely collected writings of Arius. However, all of his works were neither destroyed nor lost.   

The Council 

The council received an overture of Arian party. Davis notes, “It seems that Eusebius of Nicomedia was first off the mark and offered a creedal statement favorable to Arian views.” (Davis, 59) And the council rejected and excommunicated Arius. Walker notes, “The action of the council, as well as the texts of its creed and canons, are known only form unofficial, and sometimes much later, report. Soon after it opened, the assembly showed the direction it was going to take by rejecting a confession of faith present by the Arian.” (Walker, 134) After the council Arius felt that he was unsafe to stay in Palestine and moved to Dacia. 

Outline of the Council 

The main issue that the council dealt with the Logos. And the Logos was applied to the Son.  How the Logos/Son was begotten? It was the understanding and interpretation of the Greek word  gennetos, which is translated “begotten.” The It can be interpreted as “came to be” “derivative” or “generated.” Early believers applied it to mean that only the Father is the sole “unregenrated” hence to express monotheistic status. Everything else that existed was “generated” including the Logs/Son. 

The Logos/Son was subordinate to God and had other common with the creatures that something the Father did not. 

This seems to look subordinate on the part of the Son’s status. But Greek philosophical tradition and understanding provide deeper insight. And the council explained it fully. Something created does not mean “identity of status”, but it could also differentiated. The Logos/Son was generated like other creatures but it can also mean, “born from God” and thus in a secondary but real sense it is God or divine. (Walker, 133)

Arians accepted the phrase “ begotten from the Father” and “only begotten” as to mean God the Father created from nothing. But they rejected a phrase “from the substance of the Father.” 

The council added a phrase to safeguard the Son’s divine being by added “True God from true God.” This phrase made the Son is God. (Davis, 60)  Son is true God in the notion that  “the Father was never other than Father; therefore Son and Father must have existed from all eternity, the Father eternally begetting the Son. 
The word “of one substance (homoousios) was applied with the Father in relationship to the Son. One substance (homoousius) saying that the Son shares the same being with the Father, and fully divine. (Davis, 61)

Ironically Paul of Samosata of Antioch was one who used the homoousius to describe the Logos’ eternal power of the divine wisdom. Even though he used it to explain how Jesus became the Son of God by inhabited by the Word (Logos). (McGucin, 255)

Even though many were not satisfied with the terminology, it set settled the controversy and began to draft the Nicean creed, which would not be completed till another ecumenical council called the Council of Constantinople, 381. 

Conclusion

The council declared, “The Son and the Father are coequal and coeternal and “that Christ is one being (homoousios) with the Father”.  The council’s others decisions were included an initial formulation of the Nicene Creed, adoption of twenty articles of church policies, the Melethian schism at Alexandria, and set the date of Easter be celebrated on the first Sunday after the full moon following the vernal equinox. If Easter and the Passover were on the same day, Ester is move to the next Sunday. 

The First Council of Nicaea was the first ecumenical council of the Christian church. (Ecumenical here does not mean that is used in the 20th century as a movement toward the unity among churches.)  And the council was the beginning of formation of the orthodox doctrine on the Trinity and Christology, which is implied in the Gospels and the writings of the fathers. This paper hopes that this teaching to be passed on many to years to come. 

Reference
Davis, Leo Donald. The First Seven Ecumenical Council (325-787): Their History and Theology. Collegeville, Minnesota: A Michael Glazier Book, 1990.

Evans, G. R. (Ed.) The First Christian Theologians: An Introduction to Theology in the Early Church. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2004.

“Journal of Theological Studies”, N.S., Vol. XXIX, Pt. 1, April 1978.

Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Creeds. Third Edition. New York: Continnum, 2006.

McGukin, John A.  A-Z of Patristic Theology. London: SCM Press, 2005.

Peterson, Susan Lynn. Timeline Charts of the Western Church. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1999. 

Young, Frances. The Making of the Creeds. London: SCM Press, 1991.

Walker Williston and Richard A. Norris, David W. Lotz, Robert T. Handy. A History of the Christian Church. 4th Edition. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1985.