Category: The Nicene Creed

Introduction

The Traditional Account

The fourth-century ‘Arian’ Controversy produced the Trinity doctrine, the most fundamental doctrine of the Church. Show More

In the traditional account of the Controversy, Nicene theology was the established orthodoxy, but Arius, by teaching that the Son is a created being, formulated a novel heresy and caused the Controversy. With his superior communication skills, he was able to gather many followers. However, at the Nicene Council in 325, the Church formally and decisively rejected Arius and formulated the Nicene Creed, reflecting the Church’s traditional teaching.

However, due to an Arian conspiracy, Arianism continued to dominate after Nicaea. Athanasius defended the orthodoxy valiantly, at times alone. Later in the century, the Cappadocian fathers received the baton from Athanasius, and in 381, the Church finally rejected Arianism with a revision of the Nicene Creed. 

The Revised Account

However, during the 20th century, scholars discovered that the traditional account of that Controversy, of how and why the Church accepted the Trinity doctrine, is history written by the winner and a complete travesty (see here):

“The diatribes of Gwatkin and of Harnack (published around the year 1900) can today be completely ignored” (Hanson, p. 95). Show More

There are several errors in the brief overview of the traditional account above. This section explains some of the errors with quotes from scholars, but the quotes are hidden in ‘read more’ blocks. Contrary to the traditional account:

The orthodox view, when the Controversy began, was not the Trinity doctrine but that the Son is a distinct Being, subordinate to the Father. Show More

Arius did not formulate a novel heresy. He was a conservative, defending the traditional Alexandrian view. Show More

The Controversy did not begin in the fourth century but continued the third-century Controversy. Show More

Arius did not teach that the Son is a created being. He believed in a trinity of three divine Beings, with the Son subordinate to the Father. Show More

Arius did not have many followers. He was pretty insignificant in the bigger scheme of things. However, many other conservatives supported Arius because they saw the theology of Arius’ opponent, Alexander, as a threat to orthodoxy. Show More

However, at the Nicene Council in 325, the emperor took Alexander’s side and compelled the Council to accept the Nicene Creed. It was not a Church Council. It was a meeting of the Roman government to which the emperor invited all bishops. The Council was called by the emperor on his own initiative. He paid all expenses, welcomed the delegates, and generally ensured that the Council accept a Creed he thought best. The so-called Arians accepted the Creed because they were able to interpret the terms as consistent wth their. Show More

However, after the Council, the Emperor accepted the Arian view and allowed the exiled Arians to return, and all leading pro-Nicenes to be banished. He was baptized on his deathbed by the leader of the Arians. Thereafter, the Church returned to teaching the orthodox view.

Athanasius defended his view valiantly, but he was not a Trinitarian. He was a Unitarian. He believed that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis (Person).

Later in the century, the Cappadocian fathers, who were also Arians, accepted the term homoousios. However, they explained it in an Arian way as that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three distinct Beings with the same time of substance. This caused a severe conflict between Athanasius and the Cappadocians.

In 379, Theodosius became the Eastern emperor. He accepted Nicene theology and, in 380, made a law to declare all other views illegal. He called the Constantinople Council of 381, but invited only Nicene supporters. He deposed Arian bishops, confiscated Arian churches, and forbade Arians from living in the cities.

In conclusion, both the creeds of Nicaea and Constantinople reflect the views of the emperors at the time, not the views of the Church.

Examples of Errors

The two so-called ‘ecumenical’ councils were not church meetings but the means by which the emperors compelled the Church to comply with their wishes. Show More

Athanasius was not a Trinitarian. He was a Unitarian. He believed that the Father, Son, and Spirit are a single Person. Show More

See here for a more detailed discussion of several errors.

The Church defends the traditional account.

The traditional account is primarily based on Athanasius’ writings. He developed his polemical strategy in the 340s. In it, he claimed that Arius developed a novel heresy, that all opponents of the Nicene Creed are followers of Arius, and that he (Athanasius) defends Scriptural orthodoxy.

Today’s Trinity doctrine is more or less equivalent to Athanasius’ theology, for both claim that the Father, Son, and Spirit are a single Being with a single mind.

Despite the revised conclusions of scholars over the last 100 years, “summary accounts” and “elementary textbooks” by authors who do not specialize in the Arian Controversy often still present the 19th-century version. Since the Arian Controversy produced the Trinity doctrine, and since the traditional account was formulated to support that doctrine, the revised account casts doubt on the legitimacy of the Trinity doctrine, which many regard as the mark of true Christianity. Consequently, the Church continues to defend the traditional account.

Purpose

The current article addresses the traditional view that the Nicene Creed of 325 reflects the Trinity doctrine, in which the Father, Son, nd Spirit are a single Being with a single mind (see here). It first discusses what the delegates to Nicaea in 325 believed and then what the Creed says. It concludes that most delegates at Nicaea read the Creed as saying that the Son is subordinate to the Father. 

Authors Quoted

This article quotes from the books published on the Arian Controversy over the last 50 years. These scholars are all Catholics, and they all accept the Trinity doctrine.

Following the book by Gwatkin at the beginning of the 20th century, only a limited number of books on the fourth-century Arian Controversy have been published, of which R.P.C. Hanson’s book, published in 1988, is perhaps the most influential. This was followed in 2004 by a book by Lewis Ayres, which built on Hanson’s book. This series also quotes from the 2002 book by Rowan Williams, which focuses more specifically on Arius. Show More

Summary

All Christians of the first three centuries described the Son as subordinate to the Father. During the fourth-century Controversy, both ‘Arians’ and Nicenes continued to regard the Son as subordinate. Almost all delegates to the Council of Nicaea came from the East, and the Eastern church believed the Son to be subordinate. Therefore, the delegates to Nicaea must have understood the Creed to say that the Son is subordinate.

The Creed itself also presents the Son as subordinate:

• • The titles Father and Son imply that the Son is subordinate.
  • While the Father is called Almighty God, the Son is ‘Lord’.
  • While the Father is the Creator, the Son is His means of Creation.
  • While the Son is ‘begotten’, the Father exists without cause.

The term homoousios implies ontological equality but was explained and accepted at the Council as allowing subordination.

The Creed refers to the Son as ‘God’, but that did not mean that He is equal to the Father. For example, the Arians, who clearly regarded the Son as subordinate, also described Jesus as ‘God.’ The reason is that the Greek term translated as ‘God’ (theos) had a flexible meaning. 

The pro-Nicene theology of today is not equivalent to the Nicene Creed of 325 but evolved after Nicaea as one way of explaining it. 

The Delegates’ View

All Christians of the centuries before Nicaea described the Son as subordinate to the Father:

“There is no theologian in the Eastern or the Western Church before the outbreak of the Arian Controversy [in the fourth century], who does not in some sense regard the Son as subordinate to the Father” (Hanson, p. 64).

“’Subordinationism’, it is true was pre-Nicene orthodoxy.” (Henry Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers p. 239.)

The “conventional Trinitarian doctrine with which Christianity entered the fourth century … was to make the Son into a demi-god … a second, created god lower than the High God” (Hanson Lecture).

During the fourth century, both pro- and anti-Nicenes continued to regard the Son as subordinate to the Father:

“Except Athanasius virtually every theologian, East and West, accepted some form of subordinationism at least up to the year 355; subordinationism might indeed, until the denouement (end) of the controversy, have been described as accepted orthodoxy” (Hanson, p. xix). 

“The initial debate (i.e., between Arius and Alexander) was not about the rightness or wrongness of hierarchical models of the Trinity, which were common to both sides” (Williams, 109).

Almost all delegates to Nicaea came from the East:

The delegates were “drawn almost entirely from the eastern half of the empire” (Ayres, p. 19).

“The Council was overwhelmingly Eastern, and only represented the Western Church in a meagre way” (Hanson, p. 156). 

The Eastern church believed the Son to be subordinate:

“Almost all the Eastern theologians believed that the Son was in some sense subordinated to the Father before the Incarnation” (Hanson, p. xix). 

”Almost everybody in the East at that period would have agreed that there was a subordination of some sort within the Trinity” (Hanson, p. 287). 

As stated, almost all delegates to Nicaea were from the Eastern (Greek) part of the Empire. Sixteen years later, in 341, the same Eastern Church formulated the Dedication Creed, which clearly describes the Son as subordinate. Similar to the Nicene Creed, it describes the Father alone as “Almighty” and the “one God,” in contrast to the Son as who is the “one Lord” and the Father’s agent in creation. But, more explicitly, it says that “the names of the Three signify the particular order and glory of each” (Hanson, p. 287)

Since they accepted the Nicene Creed but regarded the Son as subordinate to the Father, the Eastern majority at Nicaea must have understood the Creed to say that the Son is subordinate to the Father.

The Creed

Indications of Subordination

It is often claimed that the Nicene Creed describes the Son as equal to the Father. However, the creed begins 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 of the Father …
through Whom all things came into being …
very God of very God …”  (Earlychurchtexts)

In several ways, this identifies the Son as subordinate to the Father:

God vs Lord – The Creed describes the Son as “one Lord,” but the Father with a higher title, namely, “one God.” This excludes the Son from being the “one God.”

Almighty – It identifies the Father alone as “Almighty.” Consequently, the Son is not the “Almighty.”  

Creator – While the Father is the “Maker of all things visible and invisible,” all things were made “by” the Son. This means that the Father is the primary Creator and the Son is the secondary Cause: It is the Father who makes all things ‘through’ or ‘by’ the Son. (Cf. John 1:3; Col 1:16; Heb 1:2; 1 Cor 8:6).

Father vs Son – The titles “Father” and “Son” also identify the Son as subordinate to the Father.

Begotten – The creed describes the Lord Jesus as the “Son” of as “begotten” by the Father, implying that the Father is the source of the Son’s existence, meaning that the Son is not the original Source of all things; the Father alone exists without cause and is the Cause of all things.

Homoousios

The Creed says the Son was begotten from the Father’s substance and that He is (therefore) homoousios (of the same substance) with the Father. In the Trinity doctrine, Father and Son are one Being with a single will and mind (See here). Therefore, the Trinity doctrine interprets homoousios as meaning ‘one substance’, a single undivided substance. But homoousios (same substance) can also mean two substances of the same type (see here).

Both these interpretations of the term imply that the Son is equal to the Father in terms of substance, nature, or being (ontological equality). However, since the Creed presents the Son as subordinate to the Father in other respects, other options for interpreting homoousios must be considered.

For example, Tertullian described the Son as a portion of the Father’s substance. That would mean that they are homoousios (of the same substance). But, since the Son is part of the Father’s substance, Tertullian described Him as subordinate to the Father (Read Article).

At the Nicene Council, the emperor not only proposed and insisted on the term but also explained it and said it must be understood figuratively as merely meaning that the Son is from the Father (Read Article). Given that vague explanation, the Eusebians were able to accept the creed. However, if it only means that the Son is truly from the Father, the Son can still be subordinate to the Father. That is how the leader of the Easterners at Nicaea (Eusebius of Caesarea) understood the term:

“In Eusebius’ reading of the text it is still possible to read Nicaea as implying a certain subordinationism” (Ayres, p. 91) (Read Article). 

Before Nicaea, ‘homoousios’ was a Sabellian term. At the Council, the Sabellians were able to include the term in the Creed because they allied with Alexander and because the emperor took Alexander’s side (Read Article). Since, in Sabellian theology, Father and Son are a single Person with a single mind, they understood the term to mean ‘one substance’. However, the Sabelians were in the minority and, after Nicaea, the church eradicated the term homoousios from its vocabulary by exiling all leading Sabelians (Read Article). Therefore, the majority at Nicaea accepted ‘homoousios’ as consistent with subordination.

True God from True God

In English translations of the Nicene Creed, it seems to profess equality when it describes the Son as ‘true God from true God’. However, in the original language, the term ‘God’ (Greek theos) had a flexible meaning. To describe both the Father and Son as theos does not mean that they are equal. It simply means that both are divine.

For example, the Arians regarded the Son as subordinate but described Him also as ‘God’. Later in the century, the Arians formulated several creeds that also proclaimed Jesus as ‘God’:

The Dedication Creed, which opposed the Nicene Creed, describes the Son as “God” and as “God from God.”

Two years later, the same people-the Easterners (the anti-Nicenes) at Serdica-condemned those who say, “Christ is not God” (Hanson, p. 298). 

The Western ‘Arian’ creed of 357, which has been described as the high point of Arianism, describes the Son as “God from God” (Hanson, p. 345).

As another example, all pre-Nicene fathers regarded the Son as subordinate but also described Him as theos:

For example, Irenaeus wrote:

“That which is begotten of God is God” (Proof of the Apostolic Preaching 47).

The following statement by Irenaeus nicely brings out the flexible meaning of the word theos:

“There is none other called God by the Scriptures except the Father of all, and the Son, and those who possess the adoption” (Adv. Her. 4. Pref. 4 – 4.1.1).

Here, Irenaeus referred to the Father, the Son, and human beings as theos, creating an interesting challenge for translators. Since Irenaeus regarded the Son as subordinate to the Father (See Article), when he described Jesus as theos, he did not mean that Jesus is equal to the Father.

As stated, the Greek term translated as ‘God’ (theos) had a flexible meaning:

In modern English, while we use the word “god” for a range of beings, we use the term “God” as a name for one specific Being – the One who exists without a cause – the omnipotent originator of the universe (Merriam-Webster). (Read Article)

Like the Bible, the Nicene decree was written in Greek, which did not have a word exactly equivalent to “God.” In the Creed, as in the Bible, the word “God” is translated from the Greek word theos, which had a wide range of meanings. This is the same word the Greeks used for their gods; the Greek Pantheon, believed to be immortal beings with supernatural powers. When the Jews began speaking Greek, they used this same word for the God of the Bible but also for other beings. For example, Jesus even referred to humans, “to whom the word of God came,” as “gods” (the same word – John 10:34-35). (Read Article) Show More

When theos refers to the Almighty, it is translated as “God.” In other instances, it is translated as “god.” To translate theos, when it refers to Jesus, as “God” is based on the assumption that He is the Almighty. It is an application of the Trinity doctrine and should not be used to prove that doctrine. Since the Nicene Creed already identified the Father alone as the “one God” and the Almighty, and the Son as “Lord.” It uses the term theos for the Son in a different sense and should not be translated as “God.” (Read Article)

Theology Evolved

The pro-Nicene of today is not equivalent to the Nicene Creed of 325 but evolved after Nicaea as one way of explaining it.

The century must be understood as “one of evolution in doctrine.”  (Ayres, p. 13)

“By ‘pro-Nicene’ I mean those theologies, appearing from the 360s to the 380s … of how the Nicene creed should be understood. … These theologies build closely on and adapt themes found earlier in the century, but none is identical with any original ‘Nicene’ theology apparent in the 320s or 330s.” (Ayres, p. 6)

Emperor Theodosius’ Edict of Thessalonica in 380 was the first clear Trinitarian document.

As stated, in the Trinity doctrine, the Father, Son, and Spirit are one Being with one mind. In that doctrine, the term ‘Persons” is misleading. (Read More)

The Nicene Creed does not contain the Trinity doctrine for it still identifies the ‘one God’ in whom we believe as the Father and because it does not describe the Holy Spirit as God or as homoousios.

Theodosius’ Edict, which made Trinitarian Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire and outlawed all other forms of Christianity, was the first to describe the Trinity as the ‘one God;’ a single ‘Being’. It reads:

“Let us believe in the one deity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.” (Read more)

The Creed of the Council in Constantinople of the next year (381) still identifies the Father alone as the ‘one God’:

“We believe in one God
the Father Almighty …” (Read more)

KINDS OF SUBORDINATION

Some Christians distinguish between ontological and functional subordination. They claim that the Son is ontologically (in terms of His being or substance) equal to the Father but functionally, in terms of role, subordinate to the Father. I would respond as follows:

Firstly, the Bible says nothing about God’s substance and it is not something that human beings are even able to understand.

Secondly, I am not aware of any of the fourth-century fathers who distinguished between kinds of subordination.

Thirdly, if the Son is functionally subordinate to the Father, and if He is eternally so, it implies He is also subordinate in person or being. If the Son is eternally subordinate in terms of roles, what difference does it make to say that they are ontologically equal?

THE CREED

The Nicene Creed 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.

---

OTHER ARTICLES

• • • Origin of the Trinity Doctrine – Including the pre-Nicene Church Fathers and the fourth-century Arian Controversy
    • All articles on this website
    • Is Jesus the Most High God?
    • Trinity Doctrine – General
    • The Book of Daniel
    • The Book of Revelation
    • The Origin of Evil
    • Death, Eternal Life, and Eternal Torment