Creeds, Conflict, and Constantine: What Happened at the Council of Nicaea?
by David K. Bernard
Podcast recording (no venue stated in the delivered transcript)
Kind: teaching
Scripture: Acts 15, John 10:30, John 14:9, Hebrews 1

Source: https://acts238.life/repository/sermons/david-k-bernard--creeds-conflict-and-constantine-what-happened-at-the-council-of-nicaea
Published by Acts 2:38 Life from the sermon transcript on that page.
Free to copy and share with attribution.

------------------------------------------------------------
Well, let me give you the short answer and then an explanation. But the council of Nika AD 325 in the little town as you said of Nika about 20 miles from the imperial capital. Um and today it's Isnik, Turkey. Um in retrospect it is seen as the most significant step in formulating the doctrine of the trinity. Now at the time it wasn't so clear. So I I talk about this if you're interested. I wrote a little book called the trinitarian controversy in the fourth century.

So let me give you the background and then show you why Nika was so important. So as we believe and understand the Bible teaches the doctrine of the oneness of God. It never uses the term trinity or the phrase three persons. uh all the the modern terms that are used to define the doctrine such as co-equal, co-eternal, conssubstantial, the circummensession or interpenetration of persons, none of that language is found in the Bible and I would argue the thoughts are not found in the Bible. So if you look at the second century, for the most part, it's still uh the writers that we have record of still for the most part had a oneness view of God as we find the Bible.

However, by the middle of the 2 century, so around AD 150, we do find some philosophers turned Christians who begin to think of a second person coming out of God who is inferior to God who's called the word of God who became Jesus Christ. Now, that's not the modern doctrine of the Trinity, but it is a deviation from the oneness of God. But you still find throughout the second century the vast majority of believers rejected that doctrine. So when you come around AD 200 or a little bit later you have the first time the Latin formula is used trinity and three persons. It's used by a man named Tertullian.

And so he's considered the father of the modern doctrine of the trinity. Although he did not truly believe the three persons were co-eternal. He believed the father was first alone, then the son, the spirit came out of him. They were inferior to him and eventually would go back and be absorbed into the one God. So that's not the modern doctrine, but it was doctrine of three persons. He wrote against what he called the vast majority of believers of his day who rejected his doctrine in favor of a more oneness view. So even as of AD 200 and later, we find most believers were still what we would think of in terms of more oneness.

And what I mean by that is they believed in one God, not three persons in the modern sense. And they believed Jesus was the true God, not a lesser deity, but the one true God manifested in the flesh. So even though Tertullian opposed that but uh Tertullian and a number of other writers uh actually bore witness that most believers of that time continued with the older concept and rejected this newer doctrine. But some time in the 3rd century, so around AD 250 and thereafter, the tide shifted and it seemed like some form of trinitarianism was becoming predominant. We find the same thing with the baptismal formula which is another subject.

But in in the New Testament, we find all the baptisms were invoking the name of Jesus in the name of Jesus Christ or the Lord Jesus Christ or Lord Jesus. In the early 2n century, we still find that and even as some started using a three-fold formula again around AD 150, they always kept the name of Jesus Christ in the middle of the formula. So it wasn't father, son, and holy spirit, but father and Jesus Christ and the holy spirit. Uh so again gradually we see a change. So around AD 250, it appears that the majority of believers and certainly the majority of writers that we have record of were now advocating some form of three persons trinitarianism and even a baptismal formula that would reflect that.

So there's no one event that we can put our finger on. So around 300 you had a debate. So most of these people are thinking in terms of some kind of uh distinction of persons in the godhead. So in Alexandria, northern Egypt, you had a prespter or pastor named Aras who was very clear in saying we've got to emphasize there's only one God. Well, how do you define who Jesus is then? He said he's a second person created by God, inferior to God. He's not really God. So he preserved the emphasis on the oneness of God, but he did so by denying the full deity of Jesus Christ.

You might say today the Aryan view would be held by Jehovah's Witnesses. So in opposition to him, the bishop of his city in Alexandria, Athanasius uh emphasized the true deity of Jesus Christ. So by this time, Athanasius had a trinitarian view of father, son, and holy spirit. Three persons. But the most important thing he believed Jesus was truly God, a second person but equal to the first person. So there was this big debate. Well, by this time Christianity was predominant in the Roman Empire. The emperor Constantine had recently acquired power and he did so by championing Christianity. He didn't actually get baptized as a Christian till shortly before his death.

But he endorsed and embraced Christianity. He actually made it legal, ended the persecution, and he was promoting Christianity for political reasons. He saw this would be the way to unify the Roman Empire. So now he found here's a big dispute that could destroy that unity. And so he convened what is known as the first council of the Christian church. That would be outside the Bible because in Acts 15 we have the Jerusalem council. But the first council where bishops from all across the Roman Empire came and Constantine didn't really understand the dark issues. He thought they were trivial. Uh and in fact um after some years later he he actually switched sides in his views.

He was actually baptized as I said before he died uh by an Aryan bishop. You know Constantine waited till just before he died because he felt like baptism was for the remission of sins. So if he waited until just before he died, then he could be forgiven of all the sins that he planned to continue to commit. So he wasn't that great of a Christian. Um and uh in fact, he he murdered some of his family members in in pursuit of power and consolidating his power. So he was not what you would consider a model Christian, but he realized the empire could be divided if we allow this doctrinal controversy to go unchecked.

So he didn't really understand the issues and really didn't care that much. He just wanted unity. So he convened all these bishops together uh near his palace and basically said, "You've got to come up with a solution." So you had Athanasius on one side who was a trinitarian, but the main purpose was to emphasize the deity of Christ. Then you had Aras on the other side who clearly wanted Jesus to be a subordinate second person, not eternal and not equal to the father. You had a majority of bishops who probably didn't really understand the full uh controversy. They were in the middle somewhere and somehow they needed to be convinced.

So the result and and by the way it does appear that there were people that we would think of as oneness believers particularly Marcellus of Ansara uh who was a bishop and Ustaceius of Antioch who was a bishop. It it appears that they did not believe the doctrine of the trinity but they did believe believe in the full deity of Jesus Christ but they both lined up in support of Athanasius because as they perceived it the real issue is Jesus truly God or not and they wanted to say yes it would be maybe sort of like us if we were having a debate and there's a trinitarian person here oneness person here and then there's a Jehovah's Witness both the trinitarian and the oneness would strongly unite together and say we believe Jesus is truly God manifest in the flesh.

Now we would differ on the interpretation of the nature of God. But we would strongly deny this idea that Jesus is not really God. So Athanasius made the argument if Jesus is our savior, he had to be truly God. He also used the same type of scriptures that oneness believers would use today like John 10:30, I and my father are one. Uh John 14:9, if you've seen me, you've seen the father. And so the majority of the council lined up behind Athanasius to reject the doctrine of Aras. Now in retrospect since it emphasized the deity of Christ looking back that seems to be a turning point for the doctrine of the trinity.

But as it was at that time it wasn't so clear because both people with oneness perspectives and trinitarian perspectives could unite. But what happened after Nika even though that decision was made um it was the issue was debated back and forth back and forth. In fact, Athanasius was exiled no less than five times because what would happen Constantine died? Well, his successors um his sons, you know, they debated over and some took the Aryan view, some took the Aanian view. So there was political turmoil, turmoil, even rioting, fighting, people being killed. One historian says more people were killed, more Christians were killed by each other during this controversy than during all the Roman persecutions of the previous 200 years.

So it was bitterly fought. It wasn't actually until the council a second council the council of Constantinople which was held in the imperial capital in AD 381 that actually decided father son and holy spirit are three co-equal persons of the trinity that was not actually decided at na that was decided the council of constantinople so that council amended the original nyine creed to make this clear and then we really think what's now called the nyine creed should actually be called the Nino Constantinopolitan creed which is too big of a mouthful but even that it seems like was refined even further in in the say around in the 400s.

So what we call the Nyine creed did not actually come from Nya but came from about a hundred years later but it's looking back that was the key step in forming the trinity just like you might say well what was the most important battle of the revolutionary war well you know we think of the start as Lexington but Lexington didn't decide the the independence of Americans it was much later so you could have different battles and the final battle the battle of Yorktown. But so in retrospect, Lexington was important. But let's say the British had won. We would not even know about Lexington. It would have been a minor skirmish because as in and of itself, it was very minor.

In fact, the the the colonies didn't even proclaim independence till a year later. So looking back, we say Lexington was the decisive moment, but that's only because we know the whole story. So sometimes one is people say well the doctrine of God was changed from oneness to trinity at the council of na the doctrine of baptism was changed from oneness to trinity at the council of na that's not really accurate it was a slow process that had actually mostly happened over the entire course of the third century as far as people's thinking and then it was another century for the the modern doctrine of the trinity to be officially uh formulated endorsed.

It really wasn't until the end of the 4th century. So the end of the 300s that what we know of as the doctrine of the trinity was officially settled. U so let me give you an example here to show you what I'm talking about. The original nine nyine creed uh here here's what it said. We believe in one God, the father almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible. No problem there. 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. So that was the key term. So not a lesser essence, but the same essence of the father.

God of God, light of light, very God of very be God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the father. And that's the other key term, one substance. Um the Greek homoas, same substance, one substance, not a different substance. So Aras was saying Jesus is godlike but a different substance a lesser substance counts on nia one substance with the father by whom all things were made both in heaven on earth who for us men for our salvation came down was incarnate was made man he suffered third day he rose again ascended into heaven from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead and in the holy ghost that's it so really a oneness person could say I agree with all that I believe Jesus is the same substance the same essence one substance because he is God manifest in the flesh.

Now they did the council did come up with an anathema clause that is a condemnation uh of anybody who believes contrary but those who say there was a time when he was not and he was not before he was made and he was made out of nothing or he is of another substance or another essence. So you see that would all be against aranism or the son of god is created or changeable or alterable they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic church. Now you might say one is people while they believe Jesus is eternal as god they don't believe he was eternally the son they do believe the son was born.

So when it says the son of God is created or changeable or alterable, we might argue, we might think, well, you know, we would say the son had a beginning. But of course, the context here is that Jesus as to his deity is somehow changeable or alterable. So you could say that that condemnation clause, which is not really part of the creed itself, could be incompatible with the way the oneness people would explain the son of God. But on the other hand, it could be in its context could be okay. But what's also interesting when they said uh they condemned anybody that says he is of another substance or essence.

I'm using the English translation that's expect used now but the Greek words were hypostasis or uzia which basically meant the same substance or essence. But trinitarians when they formulated their doctrine later on at the council of Constantinople they used hypothesis to mean persons and uzia to mean substance. So when they said three persons and one substance three hypotheses and one uzia. So technically the original formulation of Nika condemns anyone who says that Jesus is another hypothesis in later terms another person which by the way goes back to Hebrews 1 which says Jesus is the brightness of the sun is the brightness of God's glory the express image of his person hypostasis.

So if you argue well the nice the the council of Nika condemned any kind some kind of oneness belief well technically it equally condemned the modern trinitarian formulation. So that shows you how ambiguous this really was. Uh so I look at the council on the number one uh accomplishment was affirming the deity of Jesus Christ. But the sad thing is it was in a trinitarian context because and if if the people at Nika had retained the biblical concept of one God from the Old Testament, they could have affirm the deity of Jesus Christ without thinking in terms of the trinity. But both sides are already conceding that they're there that they're there they're multiple persons in the Godhead.

So once you concede that, the best you can do to defend the deity of Jesus Christ is to say, "Well, he's equal to the first person." So um they were trying to affirm the deity of Christ but they had already kind of gotten into a Greek philosophical context and where and that comes which I think we discussed earlier that the reason why this idea of a second person was so popular the Greeks felt the supreme God is unchangeable unmovable uh cannot be uh contaminated with this evil world of matter and so the only way God could interact with the world is through a lesser or immanation uh which would be a second person who could actually come down to our world.

So that was the context. So Athanasius was really trying to reverse that so to speak. But instead of going back to the biblical context of one God, he said well we can't make this we have to say there's an imination from God. That's a given from Greek philosophy. That's the way we think. But we have to make that imination equal to God or otherwise he can't really be the savior. Uh so he was trying valiantly to defend the deity of Jesus Christ but in a flawed philosophical context. To summarize the council of Nika along with the council of Constantinople AD 3:25 and AD 33 3 uh 81 established the modern doctrine of the trinity one God in three persons.

But just looking at Nika alone its main purpose was to affirm the deity of Jesus Christ. uh but only sadly for us the the main proponents were already thinking in a trinitarian context but as an interesting historical note some of the key supporters were still thinking in a oneness context and of course we can't accept the nyine creed as it is formulated today because we believe it contradicts the scripture