Council of Nicaea – Being Taught that We may Teach

Table of Contents

Introduction

What was the council of Nicaea?

It was a meeting of bishops to resolve the Arian controversy. This council produced the Nicene creed.

What was the Arian controversy?

This was a disagreement in how to understand the person of Christ.

The Arians taught that Jesus was was created by God the Father.
The orthodox belief was that Jesus was co-eternal with the Father.

How did this controversy begin?

Aris had been appointed bishop of a church in Egypt near to the city of Alexandria. He quickly became very popular. Gwatkin writes (p15):

Thus the new theory [Arianism] made a great sensation at Alexandria and it was not without much hesitation and delay that Alexander ventured to excommunicate his heterodox presbyter with chief followers like Pistus, Carpones, and the Euzoius, all of whom we shall meet again. Arius was a dangerous enemy. His austere life and doctrines, his dignified character, and champion of “common sense in religion” made him the idol of the ladies and the common people. He had plenty telling arguments for them. “Did the Son of God exist before his generation?” Or to the women “Were you a mother before you had a child?” He knew also how to cultivate his popularity by pastoral visiting, his enemies called it canvassing, and by issuing a multitude of theological songs for sailors and millers and wayfarers as one of his admirers says. So he set the bishop at defiance and more than held his ground against him. The excitement spread to every village in Egypt and Christian divisions became a pleasant subject for the laughter of the heathen theatres.

In 318, his views on the person of Christ became known, and the bishop of Alexandria swiftly denounced these views. In 321, he was excommunicated by a synod of 100 Egyptian and Libyan bishops. In 325, the council of Nicaea seconded this. Constantine then banished Arius to Illyria. Gradually, however, Arius came back into Constantine’s favor and was recalled and restored to his previous privileges.

What were Arius’ views which Alexander found so objectionable?

Harnack tells (p13) us that bishop Alexander had a formula which he used to articulate the doctrine of the person of Christ.

Ἀεὶ θέος, ἀεὶ υἱός, ἅμα πατήρ, ἅμα υἱός, συνυπάρχει ὁ υἱὸς ἀγεννήτως6 τῷ θεῷ, ἀειγενής, ἀγενητογενής, οὔτʼ ἐπινοία, οὔτʼ ἀτόμῳ τινὶ προάγει ὁ θεὸς τοῦ ὑιοῦ, ἀεὶ θεός, ἀὲι υἱός, εξ αὐτοῦ τοὺ θεοῦ ὁ υἱός;

always God, always Son, at the same time Father, at the same time Son, the Son exists unbegotten with the Father, everlasting, uncreated, neither in conception nor in any smallest point does God excel the Son, always God, always Son, from God Himself the Son.

It was to this formula, that Arius objected.

What objection did Arius make to this?

Arius’ concern was to protect the distinct persons of the Godhead; he accused Alexander of being Sabellian. Arius taught that the Son and Spirit were distinct persons from each other to the extent that the second person of the Trinity was created by God the Father. Only God the Father was eternal. The Son was created by God the Father and given a mandate to create the world. (John 1:3) Schaff writes (p156):

The Father alone is God; He alone is unbegotten, eternal, wise, good, unchangeable. He is separated by an infinite chasm from man, and there is no real mediation between them. God cannot create the world directly, but only through an agent, the Logos, who is himself created for the purpose of creating the world.

Arius did believe that the Son existed before all time and matter but was still brought into existence by God the Father. In other words, the Son was not eternal.

The Son of God is pre-existent before time and the world (πρὸ χρόνων καὶ αἰώνων), and before all creatures (πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως), a middle being between God and the world, the perfect image of the Father, the executor of His thoughts, yea even the creator of the world of matter, and of the spirit. In a secondary or metaphorical sense he may be called God, Logos, and Wisdom (θεὸς, λόγος, σοφία). But, on the other hand, Christ is himself a creature (κτίσμα, ποίημα), the first creature of God, through whom the Father called other creatures into existence; he is made, not of the essence of the Father (ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας), but out of nothing (ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων—hence the Arians were also called Exukontians), or of the will of the Father before all conceivable time, yet in time; he is therefore not eternal, and there was a time when he was not (ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, ἀρχὴν ἔχει, οὐκ ἦν πρὶν γεννηθῇ, ἤτοι κτισθῇ); neither is be unchangeable, but subject to the vicissitudes of a created being (τρεπτὸς φύσει ὡς τὰ κτίσματα). (p156)

Hodge summarizes (p455) Arius’ views in this list:

That the Son owed his existence to the will of the Father.
That He was not eternal; but that there was a time when He was not.
That He was created ἐξ οὐκ ὀντῶν [out of nothing], and was therefore κτίσμα καὶ ποίημα [a created thing].
That He was not immutable, but τρεπτὸς φύσει [changeable by nature].
That his preëminence consisted in the fact that He alone was created immediately by God, whereas all other creatures were created by the Son.
He was not God of Himself, but was made God, ἐθεοποιήθη [made God]; that is, on account of His exalted nature, and the relation in which He stands to all other creatures, as Creator and Governor, He was entitled to divine worship.

Harnack gives (p14) the following list:

(a) God, the Only One, besides whom there is no other, is alone unbegotten, without beginning and eternal; He is inexpressible, incomprehensible, and has absolutely no equal. These are the notes which express His peculiar nature. He has created all things out of His free will, and there exists nothing beside Him which He has not created. The expression “to beget” is simply a synonym for “to create”. If it were not, the pure simplicity and spirituality of God’s nature would be destroyed. God can put forth nothing out of His own essence; nor can He communicate His essence to what is created, for this essence is essentially uncreated. He has accordingly not been Father always; for otherwise what is created would not be created, but eternal.

(b) Wisdom and Logos dwell within this God as the powers (not persons) which are coincident with His substance, and are by their very nature inseparable from it; there are besides many created powers.

(c) Before the world existed, God of His free will created an independent substance or hypostasis (οὐσία, ὑπόστασις) as the instrument by means of which all other creatures were to be created, since without it the creatures would not have been able to endure the contact of the Godhead. This Being is termed in Scripture Wisdom, also Son, Image, Word; this Wisdom, which, compared with the inner divine Wisdom, is called Wisdom only in a loose sense, has like all creatures been created out of nothing. It originates in God only in so far as it has been created by God; it is in no sense of the substance or essence of God. It has had a beginning; it accordingly did not always exist, there was a time in which it was not. That the Scriptures use the word “begotten” of this Substance does not imply that this is peculiar to it any more than is the predicate “Son”; for the other creatures are likewise described here and there as “begotten,” and men are called “sons of God”.

(d) As regards his Substance, the “Son” is consequently an unrelated and independent being totally separated from, and different from, the substance or nature of the Father. He has neither one and the same substance together with the Father, nor a nature and constitution similar to that of the Father. If he had, then there would be two Gods. On the contrary, like all rational creatures he has a free will and is capable of change. He might consequently have been good or bad; but he made up his mind to follow the good, and continued in the good without vacillation. Thus he has by means of his own will come to be unchangeable.

(e) Since the Son is, as regards his substance, unrelated to the Godhead, he is not truly God, and accordingly has not by nature the divine attributes; he is only the so-called Logos and Wisdom. As he is not eternal, neither is his knowledge in any sense perfect; he has no absolute knowledge of God, but only a relative knowledge, in fact he does not even know his own substance perfectly, accordingly he cannot claim equal honour with the Father.

(f) Still the Son is not a creature and a product like other creatures; he is the perfect creature, κτίσμα τέλειον; by him everything has been created; he stands in a special relation to God, but this is solely conditioned by grace and adoption; the bestowal of grace on the other hand, is based on the steadfast inclination of this free being to the good which was foreseen by God. Through God’s bestowal of grace and by his own steady progress he has become God, so that we may now call him “only-begotten God”, “strong God” and so on.

(g) All that Scripture and tradition assert in reference to the incarnation and the humanity of this being holds good; he truly took a human body (σῶμα ἄψυχον); the feelings shewn by the historical Christ teach us that the Logos to whom they attach—for Christ had not a human soul—is a being capable of suffering, not an absolutely perfect being, but one who attains by effort absolute perfection.

(h) Amongst the number of created powers (δυνάμεις) the Holy Ghost is to be placed beside the Son as a second, independent Substance or Hypostasis, (οὐσία, ὑπόστασις); for the Christian believes in three separate and different substances or persons, (οὐσίαι, ὑποστάσεις); Father, Son and Spirit. Arius apparently, like his followers, considered the Spirit as a being created by the Son and subordinate to him.

You said that Arius accused Alexander of being a Sabellian. What is a Sabellian?

A Sabellian is a modalist or one who holds that there is only one God and one person in the Trinity. What we call Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are just three different ways that God shows Himself to mankind; see p580. Harnack says (p60) that Sabellianism became a kind of bogeyman in the early church. Bright writes (p80) that at a conference of clergy in Alexandria, Alexander gave a strong and clear statement of the equality of the Son with the Father. Arius criticized this statement as being Sabellian and confusing the persons of the Trinity.

Did the teaching of Arius gain popularity?

It did indeed. Bright writes (p80) that his views “became extraordinarily popular.”

Scripture

Did Arius and his followers support their doctrine from the Scripture?

Harnack (p20): Alexander expressly notes that the Arians appeal to Scripture in support of their doctrine, and Athanasius says that the Thalia contained passages of Scripture. The passages so frequently cited later on by the Arians: Deut. 6:4, 32:39; Prov. 8:22; Ps. 45:8; Mt. 12:28; Mk. 13:32; Mt. 26:41, 28:18; Lk. 2:52, 18:19; John 11:34, 14:28, 17:3; Acts 2:36; 1 Cor. 1:24, 15:28; Col. 1:15; Philipp. 2:6 f.; Hebr. 1:4, 3:2; John 12:27, 13:21; Mt. 26:39, 27:46, etc., will thus already have been used by Arius himself.

Proverbs 8

Start with Proverbs 8.

The text is this:

The LORD possessed me at the beginning of His way, Before His works of old. From everlasting I was established, From the beginning, from the earliest times of the earth. When there were no depths I was brought forth, When there were no springs abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, Before the hills I was brought forth; (Proverbs 8:22-25)

The words here are the words of wisdom personified which many then take to be the words of the second person of the Trinity. The issue can be seen in the differing translations of v22:

The LORD possessed me at the beginning of His way, before His works of old. (Proverbs 8:22 NASB)

The LORD brought me forth as the first of His works, before His deeds of old; (Proverbs 8:22-25 NIV)

The LORD created me as the beginning of His works, before His deeds of long ago; (Proverbs 8:22 NET)

The issue here is how to translate the verb “possessed” or “brought forth” or “created” which is the verb קָנָה.

Why is it difficult to know how to translate this verb?

Because the verb קָנָה is a homonym, two different words but spelled the same way. The one word means to possess or acquire; the other means to create. The translator has to decide which word is in use here. The LXX uses the Greek word for create: κύριος ἔκτισέν με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ. Obviously, the Arians preferred the translation of “create” since it is consistent with their belief that the Son of God was created and is not eternal. The orthodox understood this word to mean “possessed” which was more consistent with their own doctrine. Delitzsch (p183):

In the Christological controversy, this word gained a dogmatic signification, for they proceeded generally on the identity of σοφία ὑποστατική (sapientia substantialis) with the hypostasis of the Son of God. The Arians used the ἔκτισέ με as a proof of their doctrine of the filius non genitus, sed factus, i.e., of His existence before the world began indeed, but yet not from eternity, but originating in time; while, on the contrary, the orthodox preferred the translation ἐκτήσατο, and understood it of the co-eternal existence of the Son with the Father, and agreed with the ἔκτισε of the LXX by referring it not to the actual existence, but to the position, place of the Son.

Hengstenberg points (p10) to the phrase “before His works of old” as proof that the word cannot mean create.

What is the correct translation of this verse?

The translation possessed is correct. The reason for this is that the Bible teaches that God did not create wisdom but that the universe was created by wisdom. Consider these texts:

O LORD, how many are Your works! In wisdom You have made them all; The earth is full of Your possessions. (Psalm 104:24)
The LORD by wisdom founded the earth, By understanding He established the heavens. By His knowledge the deeps were broken up And the skies drip with dew. (Proverbs 3:19-20)
It is He who made the earth by His power, Who established the world by His wisdom; And by His understanding He has stretched out the heavens. (Jeremiah 10:12)

Acts 2

Colossians 1

What use did the Arians make of Colossians 1?

See Colossians 1:15 here.

The Arians

Who were the men who supported Arius?

The most significant was Eusebius of Nicomedia. He was an old student friend of Arius and already had a quarrel with bishop Alexander over other matters. Eusebius also had close ties with emperor Constantine and was able to make considerable trouble for Athanasius as a result. Later, Eusebius had a close relationship with Constantius II who became emperor after Constantine. Constantius II leaned toward the Arian side of the controversy.

From where did Arius get these ideas?

Newman claims (p6) that Lucian may be called “the author of Arianism.” Harnack says (p3) that the Lucian school was “the nursery of the Arian doctrine, and Lucian, its head, is the Arius before Arius.” He lists Arius, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Menophantus of Ephesus, Theognis of Nicæa, Maris of Chalcedon, Athanasius of Anazarbus (?), the sophist Asterius, and Leontius, as students of Lucian. Note below that it was these bishops who later refused to subscribe to the Nicene creed. Farrar takes issue (p340) with this and says that Lucian was orthodox.

The creed of Lucian, adopted at the Council of the Dedication, shows that he was orthodox. It is most unfair to charge Lucian or Antioch (which was a predominantly orthodox city) with Arianism or heresy; still more unfair to depreciate on that account the only sound school of patristic exegesis, as Newman does. Neither Diodorus of Tarsus nor Theodore of Mopsuestia were in any sense Arians. Cardinal Hergenröther may be appealed to for a much fairer view of the school of Antioch than that given by Cardinal Newman.

Who was Lucian?

Lucian was the head of a theological school in Antioch. This school distinguished itself for its rejection of an allegorical interpretation of the Bible (p210).

What did Lucian believe about Jesus?

At the synod of Antioch (341ad), several creeds were put forth. The second creed is given us by Hefele (p78) and was said to have been written by Lucian who, by this time, had perished as a martyr under the reign of Maximinus.

We believe, according to the Evangelic and Apostolic tradition, in one God, the Father Almighty, the Author, Creator, and Preserver of all things, from whom all things are; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten God, through whom are all things; Begotten of the Father before all times: God from God, Whole from the Whole, Perfect from the Perfect, King from the King, Lord from the Lord, the Living Word, the Living Wisdom, the True Light, the Way, the Truth, the Resurrection, the Shepherd, the Door, Unchangeable and Immutable; the Co-equal Image of the Godhead, the Being, the Will, the Might, and the Glory of the Father; the First-born of all creation, who in the beginning was with God, God the Word, as it is written in the Gospel, ‘and the Word was God,’ by whom all things were made, and in whom all things live; who in the last days came down from heaven, and was born of a Virgin, according to the Scriptures, and became Man, the Mediator between God and man, the Apostle of our faith, and the Author of Life, as He says, ‘I came down from heaven, not to do Mine own will, but the will of Him that sent Me;’ who suffered for us, and on the third day rose again, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory and might to judge the living and the dead. And we believe in the Holy Ghost, who is given to the faithful for comfort, for sanctification, and for perfecting, as also our Lord Jesus Christ has commanded, speaking to His apostles, ‘Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,’ that is, of the Father, who is truly Father, of the Son, who is truly Son, and of the Holy Ghost, who is truly Holy Ghost: and these names are not idle and without purpose, but show exactly the peculiar hypostasis, order, and position of Those named, so that in Their Persons They are Three, but in agreement One. Now as we hold this faith, and have it even from the beginning to the end from God and Christ, we anathematize every heretical and false doctrine. And if any one, contrary to the sound and true teaching of the Scriptures, says that there was, or has been, a time (χρόνον ἤ καιρὸν ἤ αἰῶνα) before the Son was begotten, let him be anathema. And if any one says the Son was created as one of the creatures, or begotten as anything else is begotten, or made as any other thing is made, and not according to what has been delivered by the Holy Scriptures; or if any one teaches or proclaims anything else other than what we have received, let him be anathema. For we believe and follow in truth and honesty all which is delivered by the Holy Scriptures, as well as by the prophets and apostles.”

Assuming this creed to be from Lucian, then it shows him to be orthodox.

The Orthodox

Who were those men who refuted Arianism?

At first, Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria, led the charge, but he was succeeded by a younger, stronger man named Athanasius who spent his entire life fighting Arianism. Seeberg writes (p206) that the strength of Athanasius lay in the following particulars:

In the very great stability and genuineness of his character. In a long life, amid persecution and oppression, he remained immovable in his adherence to the truth which he had grasped, without resorting to political expedients and without any waverings.
He stood upon a secure foundation in his firm grasp upon the conception of the unity of God, and this preserved him from the subordinationism of the Logos-Christology.
He, with an unerring tact, taught men to recognize the nature of the person of Christ and its importance. He was able therefore to understand Christ as the Redeemer and to define his nature in accordance with the logical requirements of his redeeming work. Just here is located the peculiarity of his Christology, which assures it a permanent place in the teachings of the church. Since Christ effects in us the new supernatural life, therefore he must be God in the sense of the homousia.

The Council

How did the church respond to this?

There was a long and bitter controversy over the doctrine of the person of Christ. The church herself, however, was powerless to do anything about it. Eventually it was the Roman emperor who intervened and summoned a council to resolve the issue.

Where did the emperor decide to hold this council?

The emperor decided to hold the council at the city of Nicaea which was close to his own personal headquarters in Nicomedia. Farrar (p475):

The place of meeting was well chosen. It was central; it was so ancient that Ammianus calls it “the mother of the cities of Bithynia”; and it was not far from the royal residence of Nicomedia. Its name, too, was derived from Victory; it bore an image of Victory upon its coins, a fact which the Emperor regarded as being of the happiest omen, and to which he was fond of alluding. But for his victory over Licinius the Council would have been impossible.

The preparations for the assembly were made on a splendid scale. The Emperor placed the public vehicles at the service of the bishops and their attendants, and bore the whole expense of their maintenance. They came, says Theodoret, in carriages and on mules and horses and asses, with a speed which marked their extreme excitement. Christians met for the first time whose names had been honored since the dreadful days of persecution. They assembled to the number, says Athanasius, of “300, more or less.” Christian tradition fixed on the number 318, and connected it with the number of armed servants with which Abraham had delivered Lot from captivity, and also with the Greek letters which stood for it, TIH’, in which they loved to recognize the symbol of the Cross followed by the two first letters of the name of Jesus.

What can be said about the fathers who gathered at Nicaea?

Farrar (p479): There were three parties in the council. Some, like Alexander, Hosius, and Marcellus of Ancyra, were not only declared but vehement opponents of the Arians; some, like Eusebius of Nicomedia, Secundus of Ptolemais, and Theonas of Marmarica, together with nearly twenty other bishops, were in more or less open sympathy with the heresiarch. The large body of the council consisted of simple and unlearned men, unskilled in controversy, but with an instinctive consciousness of the true faith, and eager to throw the weight of their authority into the scale of the orthodoxy in which they had been trained. No doubt they were liable to lose their way in the matter of a theological controversy which required some training in philosophy for its comprehension.

What were the proceedings like?

Farrar writes (p480): At last the great day arrived for the formal opening of the council by the Emperor. As the anniversary of his victory over Licinius was on July 3, it was probably on July 5, 325, that he first met the assembled bishops. They were gathered in a great hall of the palace, “dilated as it were by God.” The inferior members of the council sat on benches which ran along the walls; the bishops sat in chairs in front of the benches. In the center of the hall was a chair on which lay a copy of the Four Gospels, to symbolize the presence of Christ. At the end was a gilded seat for the Emperor. The assembly sat in silence awaiting his entrance. At last the tramp of armed men was heard, the doors were flung open, and while the imperial guards remained without, some of the great court officials—but only such as were Christians—began to enter. Then a torch signal announced the near approach of the Emperor, and the bishops with the whole assembly rose to their feet. It was then that most of the bishops saw for the first time the gorgeous apparition of the great Christian Emperor. He had arrayed himself for the occasion in the splendid paraphernalia of Oriental royalty, of which he was so fond. The silken robe of imperial purple which flowed over his tall stature and manly limbs was blazing with an embroidery of gold, pearls, and precious stones. Round his long and flowing locks was the diadem—a band of purple silk sparkling with precious gems. On his feet were the purple buskins worn by emperors alone. The simple Fathers were awestruck by the unwonted spectacle of such magnificence. The sight of monarchs in their refulgent state has always produced a deep impression. It was so when the morning sunlight smote on Herod Agrippa’s robes of tissued silver in the amphitheatre at Caesarea, and the multitude responded to his speech with the shout, “It is the voice of a god and not of a man.” It was so when the present Czar of Russia, on the day of his coronation, stepped out of the cathedral of Moscow in his mantle encrusted with precious stones, and with the royal crown of Russia on his head, and as he glittered in the sunshine the multitude with a spontaneous movement of awe prostrated themselves at his feet. But the jewelled figure of Constantine did not dazzle the Nicene Fathers only by its magnificent array. They saw in him the man who represented the final triumph of the faith of Christ, the man who had conquered by the symbol of the cross, and who had woven the monogram of Christ on the Labarum which had struck more terror into the army of Maxentius than the silver eagles or gilded dragons of the Roman legions. They might be excused if for a moment he seemed to them like a visitant from heaven.1 Nor had they as yet any misgiving that the verdict of a future age would be that the growth of the Church in wealth and power meant a decline in purity and virtue.

What did the council decide?

After many deliberations, the council agreed to the Nicene creed which established the divinity of Jesus and His being co-eternal with the Father. The creed is as follows (p293):

Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα Θεὸν Πατέρα παντοκράτορα, πάντων ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων ποιητήν· καὶ εἰς ἕνα Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς μονογονῆ, τουτέστιν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρὸς, Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ, φῶς ἐκ φωτὸς, Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, γεννηθέντα, οὐ ποιηθέντα, ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρὶ, διʼ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο, τά τε ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ τὰ ἐν τῇ γῇ· τὸν δʼ ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν κατελθόντα καὶ σαρκωθέντα, ἐνανθρωπήσαντα, παθόντα καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ, ἀνελθόντα εἰς οὐρανοὺς, καὶ ἐρχόμενον κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς. Καὶ εἰς τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα.

Τοὺς δὲ λέγοντας, ἦν ποτὲ ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, καὶ πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἦν, καὶ ὅτι ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐγένετο, ἢ ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσίας φάσκοντας εἶναι, ἢ κτιστὸν ἢ τρεπτὸν ἢ ἀλλοιωτὸν τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἀναθεματίζει ἡ καθολικὴ Ἐκκλεσία.

“We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Creator of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, only-begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance of the Father. God of God, light of light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of the same substance with the Father, by whom all things were made in heaven and in earth, who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, was incarnate, was made man, suffered, rose again the third day, ascended into the heavens, and He will come to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost.

Those who say, There was a time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten, and He was made of nothing (He was created), or who say that He is of another hypostasis, or of another substance (than the Father1), or that the Son of God is created, that He is mutable, or subject to change, the Catholic Church anathematizes.”

Did all the council fathers subscribe to this statement?

Hefele says (p295) that all but five declared themselves ready immediately to subscribe to this Creed, under the conviction that the formula contained the ancient faith of the apostolic Church. The five dissenting bishops were: Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis of Nicæa, Maris of Chalcedon, Theonas of Marmarica, and Secundus of Ptolemais.

What problem did these men have with the creed as stated above?

They objected to the use of the word homousios. This is the Greek word that was translated with the underlined text:

God of God, light of light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of the same substance with the Father…

They understood this word to mean that there was no distinction at all between Jesus and the Father. Thus, they accused the orthodox of holding to the Sabellian error (p55). The orthodox chose this word precisely for the reason that the Arians refused to adopt it. Pearson quotes (see the footnote on p256) Ambrose on this point:

Why else do they refuse to call the Son [equal to] the Father, if not because they do not wish to confess the true Son of God? As their own leader, Eusebius of Nicomedia, revealed in his letter, saying, “If we call Him the true Son of God and uncreated, we begin to confess that He is homoousios (consubstantial) with the Father.” When this letter was read at the Council of Nicaea, the Fathers included this word in the exposition of the Faith, because they saw it was a source of fear to their opponents, so that, as if with a sword drawn by their own hand, they might cut off the head of their impious heresy.

Hort notes (p211) with regard to the teaching of Eusebius

The difference of doctrine in Eusebius [of Nicomedia] was a subtle one; he taught a co-eternity, but not that of Athanasius. ‘Homoiousian’ is rather a name of men than of a doctrine. Athanasius, etc., objected to it only as having a dangerous ambiguity, just as Homoiousians objected to ‘Homousian’ as dangerously ambiguous on the Sabellian side.

What is the difference between the terms homousios and homoiousios?

The more extreme Arians boldly used the term anomoios or dissimilar. Thus, they believed that Jesus was not like God the Father. The majority of Christians were horrified by this teaching. They used the term homoiousios which means similar to while homousios means same as. The term homoiousios preserved the idea that Jesus was part of the one, holy Trinity but also protected them against the charge of Sabellianism. Compare Sozomen p138.

What did Athanasius think of this term?

Athanasius insisted on homousios, which gave no room for the Arian doctrine. Nevertheless, he was tolerant towards those who used the term homoiousios. Behr writes that the council of Ancyra in 358 affirmed the necessity of maintaining that the Son is similar to the Father according to essence, a stance usually described as homoiousian. (The Nicene Faith, 2:263) Athanasius said (§41, p472) that this council and those like it “must not be treated as enemies.”

What is wrong with the term homoiousios?

This term is not useful for advancing our understanding of the person of Jesus because it is so broad. Shedd points out (p155) this term could just as correctly be used to describe men and angels:

While, however, there is this transcendence in the spirituality of God, there is also a resemblance between the infinite and the finite spirit. The invisible, immortal, and intelligent mind of man is like in kind to the divine nature, though infinitely below it in the degree of excellence. What the Arians erroneously asserted respecting the nature of the Son would be true of the nature of man and angels, namely, that it is homoiousios with God, but not homousios. Man’s spiritual nature resembles that of the deity, but is not identical with it.

Furthermore, it gave space to the Arians to maintain their error even while subscribing to documents that had the appearance of orthodoxy. Bull provides very interesting quotations on this matter from both Athanasius (bottom of p58) and Hillary (bottom of p59).

Is it true that Santa Claus was at the council of Nicaea?

The man who gave rise to the story of Santa Claus is St. Nicholas of Myra. It is highly doubtful that this man was even at the council, but legend still has it that when he heard Arius speak of the person of Christ, he sprang from his seat and slapped him; see Stanley p110.

What was Constantine’s reaction to the Nicene creed?

Hefele (p42): Constantine the Great solemnly confirmed the Nicene Creed immediately after it had been drawn up by the Council, and he threatened such as would not subscribe it with exile. At the conclusion of the Synod, he raised all the decrees of the assembly to the position of laws of the empire; declared them to be divinely inspired; and in several edicts still partially extant, he required that they should be most faithfully observed by all his subjects.

What additions were made to the creed at a later council?

It is often said that the council of Constantinople enlarged the Nicene creed; Hort denies this (p73). Nevertheless, it was the council of Constantinople which approved a creed very similar to the Nicene creed. The two are here set side by side:

Nicene Creed (325ad)	Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (381ad)
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible;	We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible;
and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only-begotten, 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 were made, those in heaven and those on earth; who for us men and for our salvation came down, and was incarnate, and was made man, suffered, and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven, and will come again to judge the living and the dead;	and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages, God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and rose again the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father; and he will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end;
and [we believe] in the Holy Spirit.	and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, who spoke through the prophets.
But those who say: “There was a time when He was not,” and “Before He was begotten He was not,” and that “He came into being from things that are not,” or that “He is of a different substance or essence,” or that “He is created,” or “changeable” or “alterable,” the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes.	[No equivalent anathema.]
[No equivalent section.]	[We believe] in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.