Church history has its share of watershed moments. The Protestant Reformation and the Great Awakening immediately come to mind. But perhaps even more important than those events is the monumental Council of Nicea. 

Despite Nicea’s massive importance, most are ignorant of what it accomplished. Case in point, Dan Brown proclaims in The Da Vinci Code that Constantine determined the New Testament canon at Nicea. Yet, spoiler alert, Nicea has absolutely nothing to do with the canon.

Rather, the council helped clarify the orthodox view of the Trinity. In the twenty-first century, we take for granted doctrinal formulations such as the Trinity. But we must remember that church leaders from the past had no such luxury. While we get to stand on the shoulders of giants, they were the giants, and had to come to orthodox views on their own. Understandably, things got a bit messy along the way.

In the remaining space, I want to recount some of the Trinitarian messiness that plagued the early church. Moreover, I’ll share how the Council of Nicea addressed that messiness. 

TRINITARIAN HERESIES

Monotheism was a given in the early church. Christians of all stripes unanimously agreed that there is only one God (Deut. 6:4; Isa. 45:5). Moreover, it was generally understood, that the Father represented the God of the Old Testament. So far, so good.

Dispute, however, came with respect to the Son. How should the church understand his relationship with the Father? Is he fully divine with the Father or a lesser being? Is he distinct from the Father or simply a different manifestation of the same person? 

As can be imagined, many veered off the path of orthodoxy into different heretical ditches along the way.

MODALISTIC MONARCHIANISM

The first movement to generate formidable problems for the church’s Trinitarian formulation was called Monarchianism. This movement sought to preserve monotheism as its name suggests (mono — one; arches — ruler), yet it did so at the behest of the Son.

Monarchianism manifested itself in two different ways. The first way — Dynamic Monarchianism — believed that Jesus was an ordinary man whom God indwelt at his baptism. That is to say, prior to Jesus’ baptism, he was just a virtuous man, but at his baptism, God came upon him. God remained in him until his crucifixion, which explains Jesus’ cry of abandonment on the cross. This view exerted little influence and the church quickly rejected it.

A second, more formidable foe — Modalistic Monarchianism — believed in the twin convictions of monotheism and the deity of the Son. The problem with Modalism, however, is that it denied a Father/Son distinction.

Sabellius — the main proponent of Modalism — taught that God is one who takes on three different names — Father, Son, and Spirit. In other words, God appears as different modes at different times throughout the ages. During the Old Testament era, he appeared as the Father. In the incarnation, as the Son. And during the church age, he appears as the Spirit.

That is to say, God is not three distinct persons. He’s one person who wears three different hats or appears as three different modes, hence the name Modalism. 

ARIANISM

Arius (AD 256-336) — a presbyter in Alexandria — rightly rejected Modalism. After all, if no distinction exists between the Father and Son, events such as Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane quickly become a charade. No, he insists, Father and Son must be different.

How does Arius explain the difference? Since God is one, and the Father is God, the Son must be a lesser being than the Father. In fact he writes:

“The Son, being begotten apart from time by the Father, and being created and founded before ages, did not exist before his generation . . . the Son is not eternal or co-eternal or co-unoriginate with the Father.”¹

It was Arius’ contention that the Son was the greatest created being, but he was created nonetheless. In other words, “there was a time when he was not.”

Arius took his cue from Colossians 1:15 which describes the Son as “the firstborn of all creation” and John 14:28 where Jesus affirms, “the Father is greater than I.” 

According to Arius, the Son wasn’t fully God or fully man. He was somewhere in between — a type of cosmological intermediary. As Athanasius points out later, this view has significant ramifications for man’s salvation. 

Arianism (the view proposed by Arius) quickly spread across the Empire and gained a large following. The church became alarmed, but it was Constantine who convened the Council of Nicea to address this theological issue.

THE COUNCIL OF NICEA (AD 325)

Three parties were present at the council: a small pro-Arian party, a small anti-Arian party, and a large undecided party. In total, about three hundred bishops from across the Empire were in attendance. 

When the pro-Arians presented their statement of faith — a document which clearly denied the deity of Christ — it stunned the remaining bishops, and they roundly rejected it. Legend has it that St. Nicholas (the inspiration for Santa Clause) was in attendance and was so offended by the statement that he slapped one of the pro-Arians in the face (talk about being on the naughty list).

In rebuttal to the pro-Arian document, the bishops wrote a creed affirming the Son’s full deity, thus rejecting Arius’ views. The creed reads as follows:

We believe in one God Father Almighty maker of all things, seen and unseen:

And in one Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God, begotten as only-begotten of the Father, that is of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things came into existence, both things in heaven and things on earth; who for us men and for our salvation came down and was incarnate and became man, suffered and rose again the third day, ascended into the heavens, is coming to judge the living and the dead.

And in the Holy Spirit.

But those who say, “There was a time when he did not exist,” and “Before being begotten he did not exist,” and that he came into being from non-existence, or who allege that the Son is of another hypostasis or ousia, or is alterable or changeable, these the Catholic Church condemns. 

In the end, all but two of the bishops in attendance signed their affirmation to the creed. It was a great victory for the anti-Arians.

WHAT THE NICENE CREED DID AND DID NOT SETTLE

The Council of Nicea gives us a clear affirmation of the deity of Christ. It did so in a few different ways. First, it taught that the Son is of the same substance (homoousios) of the Father. He isn’t simply similar to the Father or from the Father — something Arians affirmed. Rather, he shares the same exact nature as the Father, which is why the creed states he is “God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God.”

Second, the Nicene creed affirms the Son’s eternal nature when it states that the Son is “begotten not made.” Arius equated “begotten” and “created,” but the church fathers wanted to be careful to distinguish the two. They argued that the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, and thus eternal himself. The Father is an eternal Father, and therefore, he must have an eternal Son. 

Third, the creed argues that salvation is only possible if the Son is fully divine. The Church Fathers weren’t only interested in academic theorizing which is why they include a section on Jesus’ saving work right after their affirmations of his deity. For them, if Jesus isn’t fully God, there is no salvation.

The creed, however, leaves a few issues unresolved. First of all, it mentions almost nothing about the Holy Spirit. That would have to wait until the Council of Constantinople (AD 381).

Second, the language was unclear which could explain why so many Arians signed their name to it. For example, the words homoousios and hypostasis in the anathema section are used interchangeably. Later the church came to distinguish these terms — ousia (nature) referring to the oneness of God and hypostasis (person) referring to the threeness of God.

AFTER NICEA

Unfortunately, the dispute didn’t end at the council. Many Arians continued to spread their view that only the Father is fully divine and accused the orthodox of Modalism. 

Without a doubt, the single most influential figure to fight for the orthodox view was Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria. His fervency ultimately led him into exile five different times because he refused to compromise his Nicene convictions at the request of the emperor. One example is when he refused to change the word homoousios (same nature) to homoiousios(similar nature). For Athanasius and many other orthodox, that single letter made a world of difference.

Eventually Athanasius passed the torch off to the Cappadocian Fathers — Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa. They, likewise, fought diligently to uphold the Nicene understanding of the Son as well as develop the church’s understanding of the Holy Spirit. 

Finally, in AD 381, Arianism was given its death knell as the church convened again at the Council of Constantinople. Here, the church reaffirmed the Nicene creed stating that the Son is homoousios (identical in nature) with the Father, and elaborated more on the nature and role of the Holy Spirit.

Thus, the Nicene Creed we know today (not the creed I listed above) is actually the result of both Nicea and Constantinople. 

The early church understood what was at stake in this debate — not just the doctrine of the Trinity but ultimately our salvation as well. For these reasons they contended vociferously for the truth. And we can be thankful they did.