Introduction
Purpose
The fourth-century ‘Arian’ Controversy produced the Trinity doctrine. However, recently scholars have discovered that the traditional account of that Controversy – of how and why the Church accepted that doctrine – is a complete travesty, casting doubt on its legitimacy. Different articles in this series discuss different aspects of the traditional account. [Show More]
The current article addresses the common view that the Trinity doctrine of 325 reflects the Trinity doctrine. It first discusses what the delegates to Nicaea in 325 believed and then what the Creed itself says. It concludes that most delegates at Nicaea understood the Creed to say that the Son is subordinate to the Father.
The Revised Account
A main barrier to understanding the fourth-century ‘Arian’ Controversy is the fragmentary nature of the ancient sources. However, a wealth of ancient documents that have become available over the last 100 years. [Show More]
Based on this and research, scholars today conclude that the traditional account of the Controversy – of how and why the church accepted the Trinity doctrine – is history written by the winner and fundamentally flawed. They explain the fourth-century Arian Controversy today very differently compared to 100 years ago. [Show More]
However, “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 might weaken the Trinity doctrine, which many regard as the mark of true Christianity, as opposed to the Mark of the Beast.
Authors Quoted
However, the world-class scholars quoted here all accept the Trinity doctrine. [Show More]
Summary
All Christians of the first three centuries described the Son as subordinate to the Father. During the fourth-century Controversy, both pro- and anti-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:
-
- It calls the Father Father and the Son Son.
- While the Father is 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 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 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. [Show More]
During the fourth century, both pro- and anti-Nicenes continued to regard the Son as subordinate to the Father. [Show More]
Almost all delegates to Nicaea came from the East and the Eastern church believed the Son to be subordinate. [Show More]
Sixteen years after Nicaea, the same delegates who attended Nicaea formulated the Dedication Creed that clearly describes the Son as subordinate. [Show More]
Since they accepted the Nicene Creed but also regarded the Son as subordinate to the Father, the Easterners, who were the vast majority at Nicaea, must have understood the Creed to say that the Son is subordinate to the Father.
The Creed
This section discusses indications of subordination and equality in 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.” It excludes the Son from being the “one God.”
Almighty – It identifies the Father alone as “Almighty.” Consequently, the Son is not the “Almighty.” Two ‘Almighty’ Beings are impossible, for each would limit the might of the other.
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 (same substance) with the Father. In the Trinity doctrine, Father and Son are one Being with a single will and mind. (See Article) Therefore, it interprets homoousios as ‘one substance’, meaning a single undivided substance. But homoousios (same substance) can also mean two substances of the same type. (Read Article)
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. [Show More]
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) With 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’. [Show More]
As another example, all pre-Nicene fathers regarded the Son as subordinate but also described Him as theos. [Show More]
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
-
FOOTNOTES
- 1Henry Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers p. 239.