Editor’s Note: This is the first of a multi-part series by Dr. Miles commemorating the 1700th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea and the continued impact the first ecumenical council has on discipleship today.

1700 years ago, Christian leaders from all over the world did something that was, until then, unthinkable—they gathered in one place to talk theology. Today, such a gathering would not raise eyebrows at all. Christians, leaders or otherwise, often meet—and will cross great distances to do so. The advent of air travel, telecommunications, and virtual meetings makes such assemblies commonplace.

But not in the year 325.

Just 12 years earlier, in the year 313, Roman co-emperors Constantine and Licenius authored the Edict of Milan, which granted toleration to Christians throughout the Roman Empire. Prior to that, Christianity was illegal and seen as a threat to the stability and flourishing of the Empire. Various emperors had enacted deadly Empire-wide persecutions of Christianity. (The last being Diocletian who reigned from 284-305.) Obviously, a gathering of Christian leaders at that time would have played right into the tyrant’s hands.

So, when Constantine called for the bishops of the church to gather in Nicaea to solve a theological controversy it was something new. Not since the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15, in the first century, had the church even had the opportunity to assemble its leaders in one location. And not since the Jerusalem Council, convened to discuss what to do with the Gentiles regarding Jewish custom and law, had the theological stakes been so high.

Background

The theological controversy began in 318 when a man named Arius, an elder in one of the district churches of Alexandria, publicly criticized the theology of Bishop Alexander. Alexandria, in North Africa, was renowned as perhaps the intellectual center of the Greco-Roman world. Arius had his sights set on becoming the next bishop of Alexandria and sought to discredit Alexander by effectively accusing him of being a modalist (a heresy that denies the Trinity and the distinctions between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). To solidify his point, Arius argued that the Father and Son are ontologically different (different in essence). Arius believed that God the Father first begat the Son and then created everything else through the Son. The result was that the Son is a god, but he is not the One True Eternal God. According to Arius, the Son was and is inferior to the Father, at least in the most important ways it takes to be God.

Alexander was certainly no modalist, but he was not willing to agree that God the Father and God the Son are different in essence. He first tried to settle the dispute by calling the regional church leaders to discuss the issue, but Arius rallied support and literally intimidated the leaders into not attending. Before long, Arius had taken his theology on the road and it threatened to split church.

Emperor Constantine could not and would not have it! Not when he had just defeated his rival and co-emperor, Licenius and had him executed in 324. He needed stability if his realm was going to flourish. So he called for a council of all the church’s bishops to settle the matter and paid their expenses to travel to Nicaea (in modern-day Turkey). It does not seem that he cared which direction the council went; he wanted a united church.

Approximately 300 bishops (with their entourages) from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East made their way to Nicaea. That represented about 1/6 of the bishops in the empire. One notable participant was Bishop Nicholas of Myra (aka St. Nick of Christmas fame). Conspicuously absent was the Roman Bishop Sylvester. Santa Claus showed up but the Bishop of Rome could not be bothered!

There were three different groups represented at Nicaea:

• The Arians led by Eusebius of Nicomedia. Since Arius was not a bishop, he was not allowed to vote. Legend has it that Nicholas of Myra grew so frustrated with Arius that he punched him in the face. (I don’t know if the legend is true, but I know that I want it to be true!)

• The Anti-Arians led by Alexander and his 29-year-old assistant, an Alexandrian deacon named Athanasius.

• A “no position party” made up of people who had not made up their minds on the issue.

It should be noted that Constantine was also there. He did not participate, but his mere presence leant urgency to the proceedings.

The Creed of Nicaea

The council began with the Arians offering a creed that was immediately rejected. An older creed was offered by the no-position party, but because it pre-dated Arianism, it did not speak directly to the issues being raised. Initially there was debate regarding the best path, but once Arius’s ideas were clearly expressed the Council moved with surprising speed. In the end, the council lasted about two months and Arianism was strongly condemned. Arius and his strongest supporters were defrocked and exiled and Arianism was anathematized.

The Creed composed at Nicaea in 325 reads as follows:

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 men and because of our salvation came down,

and became incarnate

and became man,

and suffered,

and rose again on the third day,

and ascended to the heavens,

and will come to judge the living and dead,

And in the Holy Spirit.

But as for those who say, There was when He was not,

and, Before being born He was not,

and that He came into existence out of nothing,

or who 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. (Early Church Texts)

Nicaea’s Enduring Legacy

The Nicaean Creed has guided the church ever since its composition and its legacy continues to bless Christ’s body. In subsequent articles, we will continue to delve into the legacy of this extraordinary Council, but I want to end with the first lesson learned from Nicaea.

Theology Matters

Today, some might look at the words of the Nicaean Creed and wonder if they represent the product of “ivory tower” theologizing, the composition of a collection of egg-head theologians who are hopelessly out of touch with the real everyday issues that affect God’s people? But the Council of Nicea was anything but that. The bishops were rightly concerned about Arius’s theology because they understood that theology inevitably affects practice. In particular, they were concerned about the impact of Arius’s ideas upon the gospel, worship, and prayer. Let’s look at each of these in turn.

Gospel: The apostle Paul taught in 1 Cor 15:1-4 that he had “delivered . . . as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.” Jesus died for our sins. In our place. He was a sufficient sacrifice that canceled the record of debt that stood against us (Col 2:13-14). Jesus was able to substitute for us because he is truly human (Heb 2:14). His blood was sufficient to pay for all human sin because he is divine (1 Pet 1:18-21). Salvation, after all, belongs to the Lord (Jonah 2:9) and unless it is the Lord doing the saving then our destiny is in doubt.

Worship: Jesus Christ, a faithful monotheist who had his theology straight, accepted worship without blushing (e.g., Matt 14:33; John 9:38). Most striking of all is John’s vision of Revelation 4-5, where the four living creatures and twenty-four elders, whose job it is to worship the Lord (Rev 4:4-11), fell down before the Lamb in the very throne room of God (Rev 5:8-14). If Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, is worshiped in heaven then he ought to be worshiped here on earth by his people. But Arius’s theology called into question the full deity of the Son of God. If Jesus Christ is inferior in essence to God, then how can Jesus be worshiped as God by the People of God?

Prayer: Christian prayer is trinitarian. Jesus instructed us to pray to the Father (Matt 6:9), in the name of the Son (John 14:13; 16:24), and in the power of the Spirit (Eph 6:18). But if Jesus Christ is not truly divine then what good does praying “in his name” do? If Jesus Christ is not simultaneously fully human, then how can he serve as our great high priest, representing us before God the Father, so that “we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need” (Heb 4:14-16)?

If Jesus is not truly human and truly divine, then he cannot do all that the Bible says that he did, is doing, and will yet do. Far from “Ivory Tower” theology, the Council of Nicaea rightly understood that if we get Jesus wrong then we lose everything. We should thank the Lord that despite initial opposition from the majority of bishops (more on this in my next post), the Council was faithful to the Word of God. The Council’s work has blessed the church ever since.