In our previous articles, investigating the Apostles’ Creed, we observed that this statement of belief developed out of a desire to instruct new believers in the fundamentals of Christianity. These converts were baptized upon their confession of the truths found in the creed, yet, under Roman rule, they knew that such a commitment could expose them to persecution, and even martyrdom. However, a dramatic political change occurred in the early 300s as Christianity moved from being a persecuted faith to one that was legally recognised and increasingly favoured within the Roman Empire. This new religious freedom from the external pressures of persecution allowed Christian thinkers to engage more freely in theological debates, leading to more careful definitions of orthodoxy – particularly concerning the nature of God as expressed in the Trinity.
What happened next? Following the reign of Diocletian – a period marked by severe persecution of Christians – the leadership of Rome was in turmoil. By this time, the Roman Empire had been divided into four regions – each governed by its own emperor – an arrangement that naturally led to conflict over supreme authority. Constantine was one of these ambitious leaders. Though raised as a pagan, he showed a measure of tolerance of Christians. As he ascended in power and military prowess, he eventually came to embrace Christianity, shaping the future of the Empire and the Church. Whether this was out of conviction or political expediency is unclear, but what is known is that in AD312, as he was leading his army into Italy to consolidate his claims as emperor, he had a sign of Christ emblazoned on their shields. This sign, that looked like an X with a line down the middle, was supposedly given to Constantine in a vision – he claimed he was told to conquer “in this sign”. He won a decisive victory at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge and proceeded to establish himself as the dominant ruler in the western Roman Empire.
Constantine became a patron of Christianity. His mother, Helena, went about building churches, and Constantine was interested in guarding Christian liberty. This was a welcome breath of fresh air to persecuted Christians. However, it was not without problems. Issues among Christians began to arise. There was conflict between those who had remained resolute under persecution, refusing to bow to the state oppression, and those who had recanted under duress. Eventually, Constantine himself was called to help settle the dispute.
More significantly for our study, theological differences arose and, from Constantine’s perspective, threatened the unity of the Empire he was striving to bring together. In AD318, Arius of Alexandria began teaching that Jesus was not fully God. He was God’s greatest servant, the closest to God, but He was not eternal and not divine because unlike the Father He was subject to change – He experienced emotion, He learned, He developed and He died. Arius was rebuked by his bishop, Alexander, but persisted in his teaching. It was attractive, as it seemed to preserve the “Godness” of God, which seemed to be diluted when considering the humanity of Jesus. The Antiochene branch of the church was sympathetic to Arius and his teaching, as it historically emphasized the humanity of Christ. The Alexandrian and Antiochene churches were already in a power struggle over leadership. The conflict was sharp and heated, yet it addressed important truths.
What to do? In AD325, Constantine called a council of elders to Nicaea in present-day Turkey. Elders/bishops from across the Roman Empire were gathered in one place to hammer out what the Bible taught about the relationship between the Father and the Son. Men who, just a few years prior, had been suffering under Roman persecution were now brought together at the Empire’s expense to debate Christian theology. Arius and his followers were there to argue their position. Athanasius, Alexander’s young protégé, was there to lead the defence of what we now know as historic orthodoxy.
The debate between the Arians (those who believed that Christ was created by the Father and therefore subordinate) and the Athanasians (those who believed that Christ was uncreated and co-equal with the Father) really boiled down to what has famously been described as an iota (a tiny difference in wording that had huge theological consequence, iota being the ninth letter of the Greek alphabet). The Arians argued that Jesus was homoiousios with the Father, that is, He was of similar essence. The Athanasians argued that Jesus was homoousios with the Father, that is, He was of the same essence. What is the implication of this debate? Nothing less than the deity of Christ. If Jesus is merely similar to God the Father, then He is not God and all sorts of theological implications follow from this – not least, that the nature of His sacrifice for sin on behalf of the whole world comes into question.
As a result, significant additions were made to the Apostles’ Creed to emphasize more clearly the deity of Christ. Arius and his teachings were denounced as heretical. It was affirmed that Jesus is of the same essence as God the Father, even though He was manifest in the flesh. These carefully worded additions and modifications were formalized in what has become known as the Nicene Creed, to which we will turn in detail in the next article.
References:
Constantine – Wikipedia entry
Know the Creeds and Councils by Justin S. Holcomb
