Tag: Homoousios

Summary

Purpose

It is often said that the Council of Nicaea was called to determine whether Jesus is God. But that does not accurately describe the dispute prior to Nicaea or the meaning of the creed. The purpose of this article is to identify the fundamental point of disagreement that led to the Nicene Creed of AD 325 and to establish what the attendees at the council understood the creed to say.

The Two Phases of the Arian Controversy

The Arian Controversy of the fourth century consisted of two phases:

The first phase began around AD 318 in Alexandria and came to an end during the Nicene Council when Arius’ Christology was presented but rejected.

The second phase was caused by how the Nicene Creed as formulated and lasted for another about 50 years after that meeting. In this second phase of the Controversy, Arius was no longer of significance. It was a dispute between four different views of the ontological relationship between the Father and the Son:

1. 1. 1. 1. Same substance (homoousian)
         2. Different substance (The Arius view)
         3. Similar substance (homoiousian)
         4. God’s substance is not revealed. Therefore, we should not formulate doctrines that refer to God’s substance. This was the majority view in the decades after Nicaea.

How the delegates in 325 understood the Creed

This point is that, through the debates of that long second phase of the Arian Controversy and even after that second phase was brought to an end, many new concepts were developed, for example with respect to the Holy Spirit and the meaning of the word hypostasis. Therefore, to read the Nicene Creed of 325 using concepts and definitions that were developed later will fail to reveal its true meaning. It is only possible to understand the Creed of AD 325 when one understands how the delegates in 325 understood the Creed. For this reason, this article focuses on the development of the doctrine of God prior to the Nicene Creed of 325.

The Apostolic Church

The Bible associates the Son with God in many ways, including to describe Him as subordinate to the Father. In the view of many, the Bible’s description of the relationship between God and His Son is inadequate: We should not simply repeat what the Bible says but develop a more advanced description.

However, in the Apostolic Church of the first century, while Jews remained the majority in the church, Christians did not attempt to explain the relationship between God and His unique Son in more detail. 

Logos-Christology

Somewhere during the second century, Gentiles became the majority in the church. The Gentile Christian theologians of the second and third centuries (also called the Apologists) identified the Son of God of the New Testament as the Logos of Greek philosophy. In this Logos-Christology:

Created substances, including spirit beings, did not always exist and exist only by God’s grace. Uncreated substances, in contrast, are inherently eternal; always existed and must necessarily always exist.

The Logos have always existed ‘inside’ God.

When God decided to create, the Logos was emitted from God to become a separate reality (hypostasis). This events was interpreted as that the Son of God was “begotten.”

The Logos was God’s “wisdom,” but that He was “begotten” did not leave God without His wisdom; God and His Logos always remained integrated.

Since the Logos was part of the uncreated substance of God from “the beginning,” He:

• • • • Is of the same uncreated substance as the Father,
      • Has always existed,
      • Must necessarily always exist, and
      • Is subordinate to the Father. As B.B. Warfield noted, “The dominant neo-Stoic and neo-Platonic ideas deflected Christian thought into subordinationist channels.” (cf. Irenaeus and Tertullian or Origen.)

Sabellianism

Sabellianism (Modalism) was the first challenge to Logos-Christology. Due to Logos-Christology, Christianity was often accused of having two or three gods. Sabellianism was one attempt to explain how God might be three and one at the same time (Kevin Giles). However, the church fathers rejected this Christology early in the third century. 

The Christology of the Nicene Fathers

With Modalism formally condemned, Logos-Christology was the theology with which the church entered the fourth century.

At Nicaea, there were three parties:

The Arius-group taught that the Son was created from nothing. In other words, they rejected Logos-Christology which taught that the Son is the Logos that always was inside God. After Sabellianism, Arius’ Christology was the second great challenge to Logos-Christology.

The Origenists, led by Eusebius of Caesarea were the majority at Nicaea and maintained the traditional Logos-theology.

The third group was led by Alexander of Alexandria. A letter in which Alexander explained Arius’ ex-communication shows that Alexander also continued the traditional Logos theology of the previous century.

In conclusion:

All the delegates at Nicaea, except the Arius-group, maintained the traditional Logos-Christology. 

This means that, at the time, the Nicene Creed was formulated and interpreted on the basis of Logos-Christology.

This further means that the word “begotten” in the creed must be understood as that the Logos, who always was inside God, was begotten (emitted) from God and became the Son of God.

The Nicene Creed – Four issues

This analysis allows us to read the Nicene Creed from the perspective of the delegates at Nicaea.

Since more than 80% of the words in the creed are about Jesus Christ, the issue before the council was about Him; not about the Father or about the Holy Spirit.

Analyzing the creed, including the anathemas, shows that it addresses four issues about the Son:

(1) HOW He was generated in eternity past, namely that He was not made from nothing, as Arius claimed, but that He is the only being ever “begotten” of the essence of the Father;

(2) WHAT His nature now is, namely, of the same substance (homoousion) as the Father.

(3) Whether He always existed, and

(4) Whether He is mutable (subject to change)

It is proposed that, of those four issues, the primary issue of dispute was how the Son was generated, namely, whether He was generated out of nothing (as Arius said) or out of the substance of God, as the creed suggests. This is justified as follows:

(a) Most of the words in the Nicene Creed that were added in response to the Arian controversy are about this.

(b) After the meeting, Eusebius, the leader of the majority Eastern Greek delegation, identified this as the foundational matter. See – Eusebius of Caesarea’s explanation of the Nicene Creed.

(c) All the other differences (whether He always existed, what His substance is, and whether He is mutable) are consequences of this fundamental difference.

(d) That He always existed and that He is immutable are only mentioned in the anathemas, implying that these are not fundamental issues.

Homoousios

The word homoousios is the most controversial aspect of the Nicene Creed but it does not reflect the primary issue of dispute prior to the Council of Nicaea. One indication of this is that the Origenists, who were in the majority at Nicaea and who also opposed Arius, resisted this word to the last and only accepted it because of the pressure from the emperor. (See Eusebius’ explanation for more detail.)

The Son is God.

The creed does not identify the Son as “God” in the sense of the Ultimate Reality:

Both the Nicene and Athanasian creeds open with the standard Unitarian language:

“We believe in one God, the Father Almighty …
And in one Lord Jesus Christ” (cf. 1 Cor 8:6).

“Almost all the Eastern theologians believed that the Son was in some sense subordinated to the Father before the Incarnation.”¹RPC Hanson – The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God – The Arian Controversy 318-381, page xix

“The initial debate was not about the rightness or wrongness of hierarchical models of the Trinity, which were common to both sides.”²Rowan Williams – Arius, Heresy & Tradition, 2001, Eerdmans Publishing Company, p109

Most delegates to the Nicene Council held to the traditional Logos-Christology in which the Son is subordinate to the Father.

Conclusion

The main point of the creed, with respect to the controversy with Arius, is that the Son was begotten out of the eternal, uncreated substance of the Father. That principle is foundational to everything else the creed says about the Son.

– END OF SUMMARY –

Purpose of this article

In his excellent book, Decoding Nicea, Paul Pavao wrote:

“It is commonly said that the Council of Nicea was called to determine whether Jesus was God. … But if we really want to understand Nicea, then that description will not suffice. It would be more accurate to say that the Council of Nicea met to determine what the Son of God was made of.”

The purpose of this article is to explain this somewhat strange statement by identifying:

• • • The fundamental point of disagreement that led to the Nicene Creed of AD 325 and
    • What the attendees at the council understood the Creed to say.

The Two Phases of the Arian Controversy

The Arian Controversy of the fourth century consisted of two phases:

The first phase began around AD 318 in Alexandria with a dispute between presbyter Arius and his bishop Alexander. After this dispute spread to some other African provinces, Emperor Constantine the Great called the Council of Nicaea in AD 325 to bring an end to the controversy. At the Council, Arius’ Christology was presented but soon rejected. 

Thereafter, however, the council meeting continued and became a dispute between the two other parties at Nicaea over how the creed must be formulated. As Eusebius of Caesarea explained, the minority party of Alexander of Alexandria, because they enjoyed the protection of the emperor, was able to include words from pagan philosophy (substance – ousia, same substance – homoousion, and hypostasis) to the Nicene creed even though the majority was uncomfortable with these terms:

As Bettenson stated, “The decisions of Nicaea were really the work of a minority.”³Documents of the Christian Church, 2nd Ed 1963, p 41

And as the reformed website Bible.ca states: “We will grant … that a majority opposed the Nicene creed. … The majority who opposed the creed were not aligned with Arius!”

These terms “borrowed from the pagan philosophy” (RH, 846) created a new problem and the second phase of the Arian Controversy that continued after Nicaea for more than 50 years.

While the first phase of the Arian Controversy focused on Arius’ theology, the second phase was a dispute between four different views of the ontological relationship between the Father and the Son:

(1) Same substance (homoousian – as per the Nicene Creed);

(2) Different substance (heteroousian – the view which Arius preferred);

(3) Similar substance (homo-i-ousian – attempted to find a view midway between the homoousians and the heteroousians); and

(4) The fourth view was that we should not formulate doctrines that refer to God’s substance because the Bible does not say anything about God’s substance. This is known as the homoian (or homoean) view which simply taught that the Son is similar to the Father.

Homoian Domination

During the 50 years of the second phase of the Controversy, a series of further church councils considered and approved various alternatives for homoousion, but the homoian view became the dominant view. This view was accepted, for example, in the Second Sirmian Creed of 357 and the Creed of Nice (Constantinople) of 360.⁴Hanson RPC, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318-381 AD. pp. 558

At the Council of Constantinople in 360, 35 years after Nicaea, the homoian view was formally accepted as the official creed of the Christian Church. Its creed rejected the term homoousion and banned all use of ousia in theological discussions. (Steven Wedgeworth)

With the homoian creed, the church returned to the theology of Origen, who warned against attempts to overly define God:

“If then, it is once rightly understood that the only-begotten Son of God is his Wisdom existing in substance, I do not know whether our curiosity ought to advance beyond this” (De Principiis. I:2:1-2. c. AD 230).

Post Nicaea Developments

Through the debates of that second phase of the Arian Controversy, many new concepts were developed, for example:

The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, “God,” p. 568, states that the teaching of the three Cappadocian Fathers “made it possible for the Council of Constantinople (AD 381) to affirm the divinity of the Holy Spirit, which up to that point had nowhere been clearly stated, not even in Scripture.”

“Finally, following the authoritative example of St. Basil the Great, it became accepted to understand by the word Hypostasis the Personal attributes in the Triune Divinity.” (Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, p. 94-95) (To understand what this means, see Why the Nicene Creed uses ousia and hypostasis as synonyms.

Many other Trinitarian concepts were developed even after the Creed of Constantinople in 381. For example:

A German theologian named Gieseler stated that the first person who asserted “the numerical sameness of nature in the three divine persons” was Augustine.⁵Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology Volume 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1981 reprint) p. 463. (For an explanation, see Should homoousion in the Nicene Creed be translated as “same substance” or as “one substance?”)

How did the delegates in 325 understand the Creed?

Given the significant development of the Trinity doctrine during the fourth and fifth centuries, reading the Nicene Creed of 325 using concepts and definitions that were later developed will fail to reveal its true meaning. It is only possible to understand what the creed of AD 325 means when one understands the nature of the controversy at that time and what the delegates in 325 understood the creed to say.

Furthermore, the Nicene Creed of 325 was formulated by a minority and only accepted by the majority due to pressure from the emperor. And, as we see in the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea, the majority (re)defined the terms “substance” and “same substance” in a way that made it possible for them to accept the creed. Therefore, to understand what the Creed meant at the time, we need to determine what meaning that majority assigned to it.

For this reason, this article focuses on the development of the doctrine of God prior to the Nicene Creed of 325. It provides a brief overview of the Christology of:

• • • The Bible,
    • The Apostolic Church,
    • The Apologists (Logos-Christology)
    • Sabellianism,
    • The Nicene Fathers, and 
    • Arius.

The Bible

The Bible associates the Son with God. For example:

The church is commanded to baptize believers “in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Matt 28:19).

He will be honored equally with the Father, has life in Himself like the Father, and in Him, all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form (John 5:23; 26; Col 2:9). These are indications of divinity.

But the Bible also describes the Son as subordinate to the Father. For example:

He received honor equal with the Father, life in Himself, and the fullness of Deity the Father (John 5:22; 26; Col 1:19).

The Bible describes the Father as His God (e.g., Eph 1:3; Rev 3:12) and as His Head (e.g.,1 Cor 11:3).

This creates the challenge to explain the tension between the divinity and subordination of the Son. 

R.P.C. Hanson stated:

“The Bible does not give us a specifically Christian doctrine of God.”

It almost seems as if Hanson is saying that the Bible’s description of the relationship between God and His Son is inadequate and we need to develop a more advanced description.

The renowned ecclesiastical historian, Philip Schaff (1819 – 1893) stated:

“At the beginning of the fourth century the problem of how to preserve the Godhood of Christ and at the same time his subordination to the Father … had not been solved.”⁶Prolegomena: “The Outbreak of the Arian Controversy. The Attitude of Eusebius.” The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Series II. Vol. I.

If Schaff could say that with respect to the fourth century, he would have said the same of the first century.

Development within the Bible

While the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke do not clearly state the divinity or even only the pre-existence of Christ, John and Paul present a much higher Christology. Perhaps the reason is that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written earlier and only describe the literal historical events as seen from the perspective of people on earth, while John and Paul, who wrote later, were assisted by the Holy Spirit (John 16:12-13) to understand more clearly who the Son is relative to the “one God” of the Bible. In other words, even in the New Testament, we see a development of thought on the question of the relationship between the God of the Bible and His only-begotten Son. 

Apostolic Church

In the Apostolic Church of the first century, while Jews remained the majority in the church, Christians did not attempt to explain the relationship between God and His unique Son in more detail. They were simply repeating the verbal accounts of the disciples and the written gospels and letters, once these have become available. (For a further discussion, see Jewish Dominated Church)

Logos-Christology

Somewhere during the second century, Gentiles became the majority in the church. Gentile Christians, in order to explain their religion to their fellow Gentiles people of the empire, needed an explanation of the God of the Bible. Greek philosophy was still a dominant force in the culture of the Roman empire and the Gentile Christians were themselves very familiar with that philosophy. In that Greek philosophy, God’s Logos (word, mind, wisdom, or reason) existed through two stages:

1. 1. 1. First, inside of the high God but
      2. When God determined to create, God’s Logos was emitted and became a separate being through whom God created all things and communicated with the creation.

Based particularly on the “wisdom” of Proverbs 8 and the “Word” of John 1, the Gentile Christian theologians of the second and third centuries (also known as the Apologists) thought and explained that the Son of God of the New Testament is the same as the Logos of Greek philosophy. As B. B. Warfield, stated:

“In the 2nd century, the dominant neo-Stoic and neo-Platonic ideas deflected Christian thought into subordinationist channels, and produced what is known as the Logos-Christology.”⁷Warfield, Benjamin B. “Trinity, 2.” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.

The following is an overview of the Logos-Christology of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, quoting some early Christian writers:

Uncreated Substances

Logos-Christology distinguished between created and uncreated substances. Created substances, including spirit beings, did not always exist and exist only by God’s grace. Uncreated substances, in contrast, is inherently eternal. Uncreated substances, therefore, always existed and must necessarily always exist. For example:

“The Deity is uncreated and eternal … while matter is created and perishable.”⁸Athenagoras. A Plea for the Christians. 4. AD 177

Inside God

On the basis of John 1:1, Logos-Christology agreed that the Logos existed inside God from the “beginning.” For example:

“God was in the beginning … was alone, but … the Logos … was in him.”⁹Tatian, c. AD 165. Address to the Greeks. 5.

“’In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God’, showing that at first God was alone, and the Word was in him.”¹⁰Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, To Autolycus. II:22. c. AD 168

Begotten Son

As stated, in Greek philosophy, the Logos was emitted from God to become a separate being. In Logos-Christology, this event was described as that the Logos was “begotten” of God to become a distinct being; identified as “the only-begotten Son of God” who later became the man Jesus Christ. For example:

“But when God wished to make all that he determined, he begot this Logos, uttered, the firstborn of all creation (Col 1:15).”¹¹Theophilus, c. AD 168

As Biblical proof, they used verses such as, “My heart has emitted a good Word” (Psm 45:1) and “I begat you out of my bosom before the dawn” (Psm 110:3).

“The only-begotten Son of God is his Wisdom existing in substance.”¹²Origen. De Principiis. I:2:1-2. c. AD 230

Integrated

This, however, did not leave God without His wisdom; God and His Logos always remained integrated. For example:

“The Father has not divested him … of the Logos power.”¹³Tatian, c. AD 165. Address to the Greeks. 5.

“Always conversing with his Reason.”¹⁴Theophilus, c. AD 168. To Autolycus. II:22.

Same Substance

Since the Son was begotten from the uncreated substance of God, He is of the same uncreated substance as the Father. It is not clear whether the Logos theologians used the exact word homoousios which we find in the Nicene Creed, but the concept is similar. For example:

“The Logos … came into being … not by abscission [i.e., cutting off], for what is cut off is separated from the original substance.”¹⁵Tatian, c. AD 165. Address to the Greeks. 5. (In other words, the Son has not been separated from the uncreated substance of the Father.)

“We employ language which makes a distinction between God and matter … For we acknowledge a God and a Son, his Logos, and a Holy Spirit, united in essence.”¹⁶Athenagoras. A Plea for the Christians. 24. Emphasis mine.

In an analogy, Tertullian stated that, like the sun and a sunbeam, the Father and the Son are “two forms of one undivided substance.”¹⁷Tertullian, Against Praxeas. 13

“For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as [the Son] himself acknowledges: ‘My Father is greater than I’” [John 14:28].¹⁸Tertullian, Against Praxeas. 9

Always Existed

Since the Logos was part of the uncreated substance of God “in the beginning,” He always existed and must necessarily always exist. There never was a time that He did not exist. For example:

“The Son of God is the Logos of the Father … He is the first product of the Father, not as though he was being brought into existence, for from the beginning God, who is the eternal Mind, had the Logos in himself.”¹⁹Athenagoras, AD 177 – A Plea for the Christians. 10.

Subordinate

Since, in Logos-Christology, the Son is part of the substance of the Father, Father and Son have the same substance qualitatively but the Son is ontologically (in terms of substance) subordinate to the Father. It follows that the Son is subordinate to the Father in all respects. As B.B. Warfield (quoted above) noted:

“The dominant neo-Stoic and neo-Platonic ideas deflected Christian thought into subordinationist channels.”

R.P.C. Hanson wrote:

“The conventional Trinitarian doctrine with which Christianity entered the fourth century … (made) the Son into a demi-god” (Hanson).

And as Philp Schaff stated:

“The Nicene fathers still teach, like their predecessors, a certain subordinationism, which seems to conflict with the doctrine of consubstantiality. But we must distinguish between a subordination of essence (ousia) and a subordination of hypostasis.”²⁰Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church. Vol. III. Section 130.

In other words, Schaff stated that, while Father and Son were regarded as equal in essence (substance), the hypostasis (Person) of the Son is subordinate to the hypostasis of the Father.

For a further discussion of Logos Christology, see The Apologists by R.P.C. Hanson. 

Sabellianism

Due to Logos-Christology, Christianity was often accused of having two or three gods. Tertullian stated:

They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods. (Tertullian. Against Praxeas. 3. c. AD 210.)

Sabellianism (Modalism) was the first challenge to Logos-Christology. Sabellianism was an attempt to defend Christianity against the accusation of polytheism.

Kevin Giles (The Academic Journal of CBE International) stated:

“One of the first suggestions as to how God might be three and one at the same time was that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were merely successive modes of revelation of the one God. … This error, which was called modalism, was rejected by the Church Fathers.” 

Wikipedia states that Modalism has been mainly associated with Sabellius, who taught a form of it in Rome in the 3rd century. This had come to him via the teachings of Noetus and Praxeas.

Tertullian condemned Modalism (c. 213, Tertullian Against Praxeas 1, in Ante Nicene Fathers, vol. 3). Sabellius was excommunicated in AD 220. (GotQuestions). 

The Christology of the Nicene Fathers

With Modalism formally condemned, Logos-Christology was the theology with which the church entered the fourth century.

“Among those who were, three basic “parties” were discernible: Arius and the Lucianists, led by Eusebius of Nicomedia; the Origenists, led by Eusebius of Caesarea, already highly reputed; and Alexander of Alexandria, with his following.” (Erickson) (God in Three Persons, Millard J. Erickson, p82-85)

Arius and the Lucianists

The quote from Erickson above refers to “Arius and the Lucianists.” Arius was the main spokesperson of this Christology, but he did not invent it. Pavao noted, “all the major players of the early Arian Controversy were trained in the school of Lucian.” (Pavao, Paul. Decoding Nicea (p. 273). Kindle Edition.) And Boer (A Short History of the Early Church, Harry R. Boer, p113) described Arius as “a disciple of Lucian.” Lucian was martyred in 311 or 312; at the very end of the Great Persecution.

While Logos-Christology taught that the Son is the Logos that always was inside God, “Arius and the Lucianists” taught that the Son was created from nothing. In other words, the Arius-delegation rejected Logos-Christology. The first great challenge to the Logos-Christology of the Apologists was Sabellianism. The second great challenge was the Lucian Christology which Arius proclaimed.

The Origenists, led by Eusebius of Caesarea

This group was the majority at Nicaea and maintained the traditional Logos-theology:

“The most important of the Eastern bishops were present, but the West was poorly represented” (God in Three Persons, Millard J. Erickson, p82-85).

“The great majority of the Eastern clergy were ultimately disciples of Origen. Future generations have tended to dub them “Semi-Arian.” In fact they were simply concerned with maintaining the traditional Logos-theology of the Greek-speaking Church” (Frend, W.H.C. The Rise of Christianity. see also, Bible.ca).

Alexander of Alexandria, with his following

Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria, where the dispute with Arius began, explained Arius’ ex-communication in a letter (The Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus. I:6.). In that letter, he explains what Arius taught and why his views were rejected. But it is also clear from that letter that Alexander continued the traditional Logos theology of the previous century. For example:

He stated that “the Son is the Word and Wisdom of God.”

And he used verses that were often used by Logos theologists, but which we would not necessarily today associate with the Son:

• • • • • “My heart has dictated a good Word,” and,
        • “I begat thee out of my bosom before the dawn”? [45:1; 110:3, LXX]

Conclusion

All the delegates at Nicaea, except the Arius-group, maintained the traditional Logos-Christology. R.P.C. Hanson, a great authority on the Arian Controversy, wrote:

“The theological structure provided by the Apologists lasted as the main, widely-accepted, one might almost say traditional framework for a Christian doctrine of God well into the fourth century, and was, in differing form, the basic picture of God with which the great majority of those who were first involved in the Arian Controversy were familiar and which they accepted.” (link)

This means that the Nicene Creed was formulated and interpreted at the time on the basis of Logos-Christology. This further means that the word “begotten” in the creed must be understood as that the Logos, who always was inside God – part of God’s uncreated substance – was emitted from God (when God wanted to create) and became the Son of God.

Nicene Creed

This analysis allows us to read the Nicene Creed from the perspective of the delegates at Nicaea.

Since more than 80% of the words in the creed are about Jesus Christ, the issue before the council was about Him; not about the Father or about the Holy Spirit. The question is, what did they dispute about the Son?

Compared with 1 Corinthians 8:6

The first part of the creed seems to be based on 1 Corinthians 8:6, but notice the section inserted to describe the Son. It is proposed that this additional section specifically affirms what Arius disputed: 

1 Corinthians 8:6	Nicene Creed (AD 325)
For us there is but one God, the Father	We believe in one God, the Father Almighty
From whom are all things and we exist for Him	Maker of all things visible and invisible.
And one Lord, Jesus Christ,	And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
	the Son of God, begotten of the Father the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made,
	consubstantial with the Father;
By whom are all things, and we exist through Him	By whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth;

This added section may be divided into two subjects:

Firstly, how the Son was generated in eternity past, namely that He is the only being ever to be begotten of the essence of the Father;

Secondly, what His nature now is, namely, of the same substance (homoousion) as the Father.

This phrase “God from God, light from light, true God from true God” indicates both HOW He was generated and WHAT His nature now is. However, the part of the added section that begins with “begotten” and ends with “begotten not made” seems to form an inclusio, indicating that this part is a unit with the word “begotten” pointing to its main meaning, namely the generation of the Son from the being or substance of the Father.

Compared with the Anathemas

In addition to this added section, which described the Council’s agreed view of Christ, the creed of AD 325 also includes a list of statements that are categorized as heretical, and all of these statements are about Christ. These statements reflect Arius’ Christology. The following table compares the affirmations with Arius’ view:

	Council’s view: (Affirmations)	Arius’ view: (Anathemas)
Before He was generated		There was when He was not – Before being born He was not
How He was generated	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,	He was created out of nothing.
His substance	of one substance with the Father	of a different hypostasis or substance
His nature		subject to alteration or change (mutable)

The Nicene Creed, therefore, basically says 4 things about the Son, namely that He:

• • • Always existed.
    • Was begotten from the substance of the Father.
    • Is of the same substance as the Father.
    • Is not subject to change.

The main point of dispute

It is proposed that, of those four issues, the primary issue of dispute was how the Son was generated, namely, whether He was generated out of nothing (as Arius said) or out of the substance of God, as the creed suggests. This is justified as follows:

Firstly, the previous table shows that most of the words that were added in response to the Arian controversy are about HOW He was generated; repeating the word “begotten” three times.

Secondly, all the other differences are consequences of this fundamental difference.

If the Son was created out of nothing, as Arius claimed, then, (a) He did not exist before He was begotten, (b) He consist of created substances, which is a different substance from the Father’s uncreated substance, and (c) He is mutable.

Given how the Council understood “begotten,” namely that the Son is the uncreated Logos that always was inside God but that was emitted from the essence of God to become God’s only begotten Son, means that (a) He always existed, (b) is of the same uncreated substance as the Father and (c) is as unchangeable as God.

Thirdly, that He always existed and that He is immutable are not mentioned in the affirmations; only in the anathemas, implying that these are not fundamental issues.

Fourthly, after the meeting, Eusebius, the leader of the majority Eastern Greek delegation, explained the dispute with Arius and identified Arius’ main argument as that the Son was created out of nothing. It also shows that Eusebius’ response was that, because the Son was begotten from the Father, He came out of the being of the Father and was not created from nothing. (See The Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus – Book II (mb-soft.com))

Homoousios

That He is homoousios (of the same substance) as the Father is also mentioned in the affirmations of the creed. For that reason, that may indicate that this was the main point of the creed.

However, the word homoousios was proposed and enforced by the emperor. Eusebius and the other Origenists resisted this word to the last and, in the end, accepted this word only because of the pressure applied by the emperor. (See Eusebius of Caesarea’s explanation of Nicaea for more detail.) In other words, at least from the perspective of the majority at the council, this word does not reflect what they wanted to say in response to Arius’ Christology. For that reason, this word was the cause of the second phase of the Arian Controversy during the 50 years after Nicaea.

The Son is God

It is often stated that that creed identifies Jesus as God (e.g., Bible.ca) but, as R.P.C. Hanson – who studied the Arian Controversy of 20 years – stated, the traditional account of the Arian Controversy is a complete travesty. In fact, the issue was decidedly not whether Jesus is God. As discussed above, all the delegates to Nicaea, except the Arius-group, held to the traditional Logos-Christology in which the Son is subordinate to the Father. As Philip Schaff noted with respect to perhaps the most respected theologian at Nicaea:

“That Eusebius [of Caesarea] was a decided subordinationist must be plain to every one that reads his works with care” (The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Series II, Vol. 1)

As quoted above, Philip Schaff also stated that, while Father and Son were regarded as equal in essence (substance), the Nicene Fathers regarded the hypostasis (Person) of the Son as subordinate to the hypostasis of the Father (Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church. Vol. III. Section 130. Emphasis mine, parentheses his. (pp. 251-252).

The Arius-group denied that the Son always existed and, therefore, had an even lower Christology. Therefore, if we use the word “God” for the Ultimate Reality, then none of the delegates thought of Christ as such. All of them regarded the Son as subordinate to the Father.

This is confirmed by the creed itself which identifies the “one God” of Christianity as the Father alone:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty …
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God …
And in the Holy Ghost. (cf. 1 Tim 2:5; cf. 1 Cor 8:6; John 5:44)

Whereas the Apostles’ Creed declared only that Jesus Christ is God’s only Son, and our Lord, the Nicene Creed added the following declaration dealing with eternal subordination:

“and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from 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.”

As Schaff makes clear, these statements reflected a belief in the eternal subordination of the Son. The idea that the Son is begotten and the Father unbegotten means that the Father is primary and Sonship secondary. Schaff declares that “all important scholars since Petavius admit subordination in the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity.” (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. III (311–600) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950) 683.

Conclusion

Out of what

At the beginning of the article, I mentioned that Paul Pavao wrote that the main point of the Nicene Creed was “what the Son of God was made of.” I propose that that is not entirely correct. What the Son of God was made of is only a consequence of the question out of what He was generated; out of God or out of nothing.

I propose, therefore, that the main point of the creed is that the Son was begotten out of the eternal, uncreated substance of the Father. That principle is foundational to everything else in the creed. Consistently, the Nicene Creed states three times that the Son was “begotten.”

• • • List of all articles on this website
    • Other articles in the series on the historical development of the Nicene Creed

• 1
  RPC Hanson – The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God – The Arian Controversy 318-381, page xix
• 2
  Rowan Williams – Arius, Heresy & Tradition, 2001, Eerdmans Publishing Company, p109
• 3
  Documents of the Christian Church, 2nd Ed 1963, p 41
• 4
  Hanson RPC, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318-381 AD. pp. 558
• 5
  Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology Volume 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1981 reprint) p. 463.
• 6
  Prolegomena: “The Outbreak of the Arian Controversy. The Attitude of Eusebius.” The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Series II. Vol. I.
• 7
  Warfield, Benjamin B. “Trinity, 2.” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.
• 8
  Athenagoras. A Plea for the Christians. 4. AD 177
• 9
  Tatian, c. AD 165. Address to the Greeks. 5.
• 10
  Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, To Autolycus. II:22. c. AD 168
• 11
  Theophilus, c. AD 168
• 12
  Origen. De Principiis. I:2:1-2. c. AD 230
• 13
  Tatian, c. AD 165. Address to the Greeks. 5.
• 14
  Theophilus, c. AD 168. To Autolycus. II:22.
• 15
  Tatian, c. AD 165. Address to the Greeks. 5.
• 16
  Athenagoras. A Plea for the Christians. 24. Emphasis mine.
• 17
  Tertullian, Against Praxeas. 13
• 18
  Tertullian, Against Praxeas. 9
• 19
  Athenagoras, AD 177 – A Plea for the Christians. 10.
• 20
  Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church. Vol. III. Section 130.