Ambrose and the Courage to Resist the State (Ephesians 1:22)

On rare occasions, leaders arise in history who possess the vision and capability to effectively address several significant problems at once, often leaving a lasting impact on their societies. In the late fourth century, that exceptional leader was Ambrose of Milan, Italy (340-397 AD). As Bishop of Milan, he was not only a powerful orator but also a devoted theologian whose influence reached far beyond his time. Substantial challenges were confronting the movement of God’s Story of Grace, including political strife, theological disputes, and moral decline in the church, which Ambrose navigated with remarkable skill. He actively worked to bridge the gap between church and state, advocating for Christian values while confronting the powerful rulers of his day, thereby shaping the early Christian church’s influence within the Roman Empire.

The church was divided and weakened by the heresy of Arianism.
The power and authority of state rulers over the church had become way too great.
There were no larger voices to shape a biblical understanding to address the great shifts of the changing times.

All of these factors combined, placed the church at a place of increased impotency. In Ambrose, an unlikely and reluctant bishop in northern Italy, these problems would find a decisive answer. In God’s Story of Grace, he would arise to the occasion and weave together several loose threads into a unified knot. Further, he would ascend to a place of influence–not from his own choosing or ambition–to showcase the supremacy of Christ in the world:

God has put all things under the authority of Christ and has made him head over all things for the benefit of the church. (Ephesians 1:22)

In this article we will see how the life of Ambrose, in his spiritual authority, restrained the most powerful state in the world, showing the supremacy of Christ for his church over all things.

Life of Ambrose

Summoned to Lead

Ambrose, born in 340 AD, was the son of a government official in Trier, a city in present-day Germany. Following in his father’s footsteps he trained as a lawyer to prepare himself for a life of service as a government official. By his early 30s, he was already governor of Milan, a city in northern Italy. Milan had taken over Rome as the place of imperial rule due to the emergence of barbarian invaders threatening the capital city. When the bishop of Milan died in 374 AD, Ambrose expected trouble. Tension between the Nicene (those holding to the divinity of Jesus) and Arian (those holding to Jesus being less than divinity) parties were very sharp. Conflict arose over whether the new bishop would be Arian or Nicene.

As it was coming time to choose a bishop, crowds surged into the streets, some shouting they wanted an Arian bishop, while others demanded a Nicene replacement. The animosities were potentially boiling to a riot. As regional governor, it was Ambrose’s responsibility to oversee the election. He pleaded with the crowd to keep the peace. He was not publicly identified with either party. As he addressed the riotous crowds, the people were enthralled with his speaking ability. Combined with his existing popularity, the crowd began to shout, “Ambrose for bishop!” The pleas grew more insistent: “Ambrose for bishop! Ambrose for bishop!”

The two major problems with this appeal is that Ambrose had no desire to be bishop; further, he had not even been baptized. After strongly resisting the call to spiritual leadership over Milan, he finally consented to the will of the citizens. Within eight days, Ambrose was baptized and ordained bishop of Milan. As a leader he was both wise and humble enough to know how much he had to learn. When he became bishop, he gave away his wealth and found teachers in theology to help him learn what he needed to know to effectively shepherd and guide as bishop. He eventually became one of the most learned men of his time. His influence would be felt for centuries.

Overcoming the Power of Arianism

Upon attaining the role of bishop, he was not publicly aligned with either Nicene or Arian views. This worked to his favor because both parties believed that they had obtained a mutually acceptable candidate in Ambrose. As he grew in spiritual leadership and applied his education to the interpretation and exposition of scripture; he acquired a profoundly biblical and Nicene understanding of the faith. It would be this doctrine that he zealously defended in the face of Arian opposition not only against Arian bishops but from the imperial power of the Rome. Emperor Valentinian II, who was Arian, attempted to have one of the three major churches in Milan under the control of the Arians for their use. Ambrose refused. The conflict culminated in a stand-off between imperial and church authority. Ambrose and his supporters barricaded themselves inside the church successfully resisting the efforts of Valentinian.

During the confrontation Ambrose set forth an important principle that would have ramifications for Church-state relations for centuries: “The emperor is in the church, not above it.” In 381, the same year as the Council of Constantinople, Ambrose presided over the Council of Aquileia in the West. This council deposed several Arian bishops, solidifying support for Nicene and biblical belief in his own realm.

“The emperor is in the church, not above it.”
Ambrose of Milan

Overcoming the Pride of Rome

Ambrose’s triumph over a politically powerful Arianism was followed by a more thorny confrontation with another imperial authority who arose to the throne in 380, Theodosius. Not long after he became emperor, Theodosius declared Nicene Christianity the official belief of the entire Roman Empire. Yet Ambrose’s principle of the emperor being “in the church, not above it” would face an even greater test with this new ruler. This happened when Theodosius ordered the massacre of some 7,000 people in Thessalonica after a local riot that claimed the lives of several imperial officers. Ambrose, as the emperor’s bishop, ordered him to do public penance. In a carefully worded but firm letter, he chided the emperor, likening his action to King David’s murder of Uriah the Hittite:

Bear it, then, with patience, O Emperor, if it be said to you: You have done that which was spoken of to King David by the prophet. For if you listen obediently to this, and say, “I have sinned against the Lord,” if you repeat those words of the royal prophet: “O come let us worship and fall down before Him, and mourn before the Lord our God, Who made us,” it shall be said to you also: “Since you repent, the Lord puts away your sin, and you shall not die.”

Theodosius complied with this directive and publicly repented and decreed that, going forward, any time he sentenced someone to death, there should be a waiting period of a month before the sentence was carried out. This way he would not act in haste.

Ambrose’s Legacy

Ambrose was used in God’s Story of Grace to place the church on a footing of moral authority in order that Christianity and the gospel could give spiritual guidance to the larger development of civilization. He did this by bravely and effectively resisting two emperors, demonstrating a remarkable blend of spiritual fortitude and diplomatic skill, and placing the church at its proper place of authority. This courageous stance was not merely an act of defiance but a profound assertion that would allow the church to become a moral compass and conscience of the state, particularly as western Rome began a gradual process of disintegration marked by political turmoil and societal upheaval. In this context, the church would rise to take the lead as the unifying energy of civilization, fostering a sense of community and shared purpose among disparate groups. As God is shaping the world after his trinitarian image, Ambrose’s stance and resistance would create greater humility in the state (after the one God), prompting rulers to recognize the limits of their power. This acknowledgment would allow greater freedom and creativity for society (after the distinctive persons), encouraging a flourishing of culture, art, and thought, rooted in Christian values. Ambrose’s enduring influence would echo through history, reminding future generations of the vital interplay between faith and governance in the pursuit of a just and equitable society.

This would also pave the way for the contributions of Ambrose’s greatest disciple, Augustine. It would be Augustine who would provide a monumental understanding of the role and limits of the state in relation to church, especially in his magisterial writing, The City of God. It would be through the leadership of Ambrose, and to a much greater extent, Augustine, that the church and society would find a way to understand its place, as the Rome of the West would become increasingly weakened by barbarian invasions it was not able to stop.

Why Constantine Was Good For Christianity (Hosea 6:6)

Two rivals, Constantine and Maxentius, met in an earth-shaking confrontation at the Milvian Bridge, north of Rome, over the Tiber River. Maxentius held Rome in his iron grip. As Constantine descended from the north, this brilliant general marched his smaller, battle-hardened army toward Rome. The day before the final battle, Constantine was filled with a familiar anxiety. At midday, his gaze drifted upward, away from the turmoil of his camp. There, he saw a cross of light above the sun itself, with the Greek words “Ἐν Τούτῳ Νίκα” (“In this sign, conquer”) emblazoned upon it. Later that night, another vision came to him in a dream. Christ appeared, bearing the same cross, and commanded Constantine to make this symbol his standard in battle. The symbol was the Chi-Rho, an elegant monogram formed from the first two Greek letters of “Christ.” The next day, he ordered his soldiers to paint the sacred monogram on their shields. Within hours, the two armies clashed fiercely on the plain north of Rome. Constantine’s cavalry, emblazoned with the Chi-Rho, charged with a ferocity that Maxentius’s larger army could not match. It was a decisive victory. After his victory at the Milvian Bridge, what Constantine did next—or did not do—would begin to echo through the ages. The rules of the triumph required Constantine to enter the Roman capital and offer the sacrifice of an animal to Jupiter; Constantine refused. This was because he attributed his win to the Christian God.

Constantine became the first Roman emperor to embrace and then promote Christianity. To some, this royal acceptance is what led to a corruption and decline of biblical Christianity for the centuries ahead. The worldly priorities of state power overtook the founding mission to make disciples given by Jesus (Matthew 28:19). so it is claimed. But what if Constantine had not become favorable to Christianity? Would the church have been stronger as a persecuted and minority faith? The answer is probably not. From the angle of God’s Story of Grace, Constantine was part of a kairos (“fullness of time moment”) that brought a pivotal change: he shifted the dominant religious theme of Rome from the pervasively practiced pagan blood sacrifice to a civic acknowledgment of the completed blood sacrifice of Christ. For all of Constantine’s alleged blessings and flaws, this exchange brought a pivotal shift in Western civilization.

In this article, the claim will be made that the effects of the atonement of Christ, which began to be embraced by the Roman Empire, liberated society from the fear of appeasing angry and volatile deities to providing increasing mercy to increase compassion in society. This would be a turning point for the widespread improvement of civilization reflecting the mutual and self-giving love of the Trinity.

Bloody Rome

The core of Rome’s existence was built on sacrifice. These frequently included animal offerings like rams and ox; but also human slaughter through gladiatorial games, strangling prisoners at the temple, burying prisoners of war alive, among others atrocities. Sacrifices were central to establishing favor with the deities in order to appease them for transgressions or demonstrate devotion to gain their favor. Another way this sacrificial devotion was expressed was the killing of Christians. This occurred at its greatest extent from 303 to 311, just before Constantine ascended to the throne in 312. Diocletian became emperor in 284. In 299, he participated in a sacrifice to seek the favor of the Roman Empire, while in the city of Antioch, that proved alarming. When the liver of a slaughtered animal was examined, the pagan priest said it showed unfavorable signs. For Diocletian this was very disturbing. The very peace of Rome was at stake. Theologian Peter Leithart describes what happens next:

The presiding diviner investigated and concluded that “profane persons” had interrupted the rites, and attention focused on Christians in Diocletian’s court who had made the sign of the cross to ward off demons during the proceedings. Diocletian was outraged and demanded that all members of his court offer sacrifice, a test designed to weed out Christians. Soldiers were required to sacrifice or leave the sacred Roman army. At least at the heart of the empire, in the court and in the army, sacrifices would continue without being polluted by Christians. At the heart of the empire, where it really mattered, gods and men would remain in communion.

Still the problem was not solved. Leithart continues:

Several years after the failed sacrifice, Diocletian was back in Antioch when a Christian deacon, Romanus, burst in on another imperial sacrifice loudly denouncing the worship of demons. Diocletian ordered that his tongue be cut out and sentenced him to prison, where he was executed, but the emperor knew something more needed to be done. Wintering in Nicomedia the following year, Diocletian consulted with his Caesar Galerius about the problem. “Arrogant and ambitious” and a “fanatical pagan,” Galerius urged Diocletian to issue a general order against the Christians.

Diocletian was charged with guarding the frontiers of the empire and maintaining the sacredness of Rome. It was his solemn duty to expel any pollution that might infect it and bring down the wrath of the gods. Christianity was spreading, and Christians were everywhere. From Diocletian’s point of view, Rome could only be saved by a massive sacrifice of Christian blood. What started out in 303 as an arrest and violence against Christian leaders turned into a bloodshed in the most widespread, long lasting and severe persecution which the church had ever faced under the hammer of Rome. The beginning of the end would finally occur at the battle at the Milvian Bridge in 312 and one year later the blood sacrifice of Christians ended in 313 when Constantine issued the Edict of Milan. This gave Christians legal status to practice their faith.

This was the beginning of a series of reforms which would baptize the Roman Empire in a Christian direction away from paganism. He prohibited his provincial governors from offering sacrifices at official functions, thus opening up civil offices to Christians. Eusebius, the ancient historian, claimed Constantine passed a law around 324 that “was intended to restrain the idolatrous abominations which in times past had been practiced in every city and country; and it provided that no one should erect images, or practice divination and other false and foolish arts, or offer sacrifices in any way.” In 325, he issued an edict against the gladiatorial games declaring that “bloody spectacles are not suitable for civil ease and domestic quiet.” Constantine himself fought imperial wars, but his victories were not celebrated as the honor-wars to the gods of previous emperors had done.

With Constantine, the Roman Empire became officially an empire without sacrifice or at least a bloody sacrifice. It still had acknowledgement of sacrifice, but it was the sacrifice provided once and for all by Jesus Christ. The implications had earth-quaking significance. Again, Peter Leithart explains:

Every city is sacrificial, but Constantine eliminated sacrifice in his own city and welcomed a different sacrificial city into Rome. For a fourth-century Roman, eliminating sacrifice from the city was as much as to say, “My city is no longer a city.” For a fourth-century Roman, acknowledging the church’s bloodless sacrifice as the sacrifice was as much as to say, “The church is the true city here.” When Constantine began to end sacrifice, he began to end Rome as he knew it, for he initiated the end of Rome’s sacrificial lifeblood and established that Rome’s life now depended on its adherence to another civic center, the church.

Because Rome couldn’t acknowledge the ultimate and final sacrifice for humanity, it was not free to exercise mercy. Above all God desires from his people “mercy not sacrifice.” (Hosea 6:6)

Pagan Sacrifice to the Sacrifice of Christ

The state became more compassionate. Because the sacrifice of Christ was accomplished “once and for all,” Rome no longer needed to be consumed with the brutal work of appeasing bloodthirsty entities. Rather, it could promote compassion and mercy as expressed through the message of the church. This would, in turn, bring the promotion of more just laws.

Crucifixion was abolished.
Funding for the poor, orphans, and widows was introduced.
The practice of infanticide through exposing unwanted babies was made illegal. Care for unwanted children was provided for from the public treasury.
More humane policies toward slaves was put in place.
Branding on the faces of criminals was made illegal.
Prison reform was inaugurated requiring that prisoners be given daylight and fresh air instead of being kept in total darkness.
Gladiator games were banned.
Women were given more rights in regard to their children.
A day of rest was put in place , thereby reordering the life of society to make space for Christian worship.¹

The mission of the church expanded. The Constantinian revolution created space for Christianity to shape the new society that was being constructed away from paganism. The church put forward a new idea of a separate community within society. No longer did the state control the ultimate meaning of life. The church was a gathered community within the state that brought in God’s Story of Grace in Jesus Christ. The result was a great flowering of Christian expression in art, architecture, law, theology, philosophy, and spiritual literature. None of this was imposed by the state but came as a natural outgrowth of the dynamic movement of Christianity. The number of disciples would mount across the empire. Historian Robert Louis Wilken describes the church’s growth:

The transformation that took place within the empire would be replicated again and again as Christianity spread beyond Rome’s boundaries into northern Europe, among the Franks and the Germans, the British and the Irish, the Scandinavians and the Poles, the Lithuanians and the Bulgars, the Ukrainians and the Russians, into Asia among the Armenians and Georgians, and into Africa among the Nubians and Ethiopians. For all these peoples conversion to Christianity meant a change of public practice in law, in architecture, in calendar, in marriage customs, in political institutions, in social mores, in burial practices, and much more.

Statistically, it would be at the time of Constantine that Christianity would experience an exponential growth.²

Conclusion

In Constantine, God’s Story of Grace would advance primarily with the cross triumphing over paganism, and compassion beginning to overtake the Roman jaws of power. The Christian ethic of human value would advance as a widespread value in Western culture. It would be from this place that the boundaries of Christian mission and influence would be expanded. For the first time, the organic movement of the church would intersect with the force of Roman power, and a new phase of the image of the Trinity would be born into the world. All the parts of Rome (the many) would become more unified as a larger body (the one) under the sign of the cross.³

_______________________________________________________________

Though Constantine would have a revolutionary influence, he did not usher in a “golden age” of Christianity. Over the next decades after Constantine, Christianity would face a battle against Arianism to affirm the deity of Christ as affirmed in the Council of Nicaea. Often those like Athanasius, who affirmed the Nicaean Creed were severely persecuted.
Rodney Stark has provided these stats on the growth of Christianity in the first four centuries: 7,500 Christians by the end of the first century (0.02% of sixty million people); 40,000 Christians by 150 AD (0.07%); 200,000 by 200 AD (0.35%); 2 million by 250 AD (2%)6 million by 300 AD (10%); 34 million by 350 AD (57%)
Under Constantine, the church held its first ecumenical council, which affirmed the doctrine of the deity of Christ at the Nicaean Council in 325.

The Council Of Nicaea: How the Church Came to Universally Affirm that Jesus Is Truly God (John 1:1)

**portrayal of Constantine before the bishops of Nicaea**

Constantine (AD 272-337) became the first Roman Emperor to convert to Christianity. After ascending to his throne in AD 306, he would go on to defeat his greatest rival, Licinus, in AD 324, to make his control over the empire secure. Having reached this perch, he faced an even greater threat to the strength and unity of his empire: a theological division within the rapidly growing Christian movement. This division was regarding whether or not Jesus Christ is truly God, equal in nature to the Father. This issue, if not addressed, would escalate a social rift that could eventually spread across three continents. To stave this off, he summoned a council of all the bishops (leaders over a region of churches) for the first ecumenical (worldwide) council. This became known as the Council of Nicaea. This would establish a powerful move forward within God’s Story of Grace. This council would develop the foundational creedal statement forever shaping the universal church’s belief in the deity of Christ. It would begin the process of formally unifying the beliefs and identity of a movement which had spread to millions in just three centuries. The diversity of the many churches would be brought closer together in the unity and oneness of faith, reflecting the diversity and oneness of the Trinity on earth.

The Council

The controversy that led to Nicaea had two key figureheads: Alexander and Arius,¹ both from Alexandria Egypt. Arius taught that Jesus was a created being, less than God. Alexander, in strong opposition, affirmed that Jesus was fully God, equal to the Father. Arius’ view was increasing in popularity, in part because he was able to put his teaching in witty rhymes set to catchy tunes. Even the dockhands on the wharves at Alexandria could hum the ditties while unloading fish. To him, the idea of Jesus being equal in divinity with the Father, threatened the oneness of God. In sharp contrast for Alexander, reducing Christ to a created being called into question the very heart of the Christian faith. If Jesus is not truly God then he alone is not sufficient to save humanity from sin.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1)

“The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.” (John 1:14)

“I and the Father are one.” (John 10:30)

“Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.” (John 14:9)

“For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form.” (Colossians 2:9)

“Christ, who is God over all.” (Romans 9:5)

“Our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:13)

Scriptures Alexander Would Have Used

Constantine appealed to them to come to agreement so that it would not cause commotion among the people they led.² His appeal was ineffective, and the controversy continued. To the emperor’s own mind, whether Jesus Christ was equally divine with the Father was a trivial matter in comparison with the unity of the Empire. Arius and Alexander, on the other hand, understood the consequences of the issue had unparalleled importance. So, without the two parties coming to agreement, Constantine initiated a conference of bishops to decide the issue.

On AD 325, about 300³bishops set foot upon the town of Nicaea, in modern day Turkey, along with thousands of other deacons and elders.⁴ In the conference hall where they gathered was a table in which lay an open copy of the Gospels, which was there to express the scripture as their ultimate authority. For three centuries they and their spiritual ancestors experienced periodic persecutions instigated by various emperors. Not that long ago they experienced their most fierce persecution under Diocletian. Now they were actually gathered before the leading ruler of the land as allies with him.⁵Constantine entered the hall without his customary train of soldiers showing that he was operating in the spirit of peace. As a mark of his reverence for them, he would not take his seat until the bishops nodded their assent. Like the king in chess, Constantine occupied a prominent position, but he did not actually do very much as the council went underway.⁶ He spoke only briefly compelling these men of the church to come to some agreement on the questions dividing them. “Division in the church is worse than war,” he declared solemnly. The once-despised religion was on its way to becoming acknowledged and favored by the state. This was all a monumental change for these leaders of the church.

The Controversy

The various sides in the conflict each raised their own points, and from the start there was a tremendous argument. It was possibly Bishop Hosius of Cordova (modern Spain), a theological adviser of the emperor, who suggested that the focus of the debate should be around the Greek word, homoousios. The word, drawn from two Greek words, means “of the same substance.”⁷This is very different to the modern idea of a physical “substance” like milk or copper. It means something more like “being” or “nature.” When homoousios is applied to Jesus Christ, it means that his nature (substance) was divine in the same way as God the Father is divine, not inferior or different. Jesus Christ was truly God alongside the Father. As the debate centered around homoousios, the two parties interpreted the word in two different ways as it related to the nature of Jesus Christ. It came down to whether you will put an additional i (Greek letter for i is iota) or not.

HOMOOUSIAS=SAME SUBSTANCE
HOMOIOUSIAS=SIMILAR SUBSTANCE (the i between the two oo’s-oio-changes the meaning of the word from same to similar)

Leaders	Viewpoint
Alexander	of the same substance— homoousios
Arius	of a similar substance— homoiousios

As the debate continued, homoousias rather than homoiousias won out.

This is the agreement of faith that the great council came to:

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, the only-begotten,
begotten of the Father before all ages.
Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not made,⁸
of one essence [homoousias] with the Father by whom all things were made;
who for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven,
and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became man.
And He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate,
and suffered, and was buried.
And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures;
and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father;
and He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead;
whose Kingdom shall have no end.
And in the Holy Spirit.⁹

This creed was agreed to and signed by the nearly 300 members of council. Only five refused to sign. Two of those five did sign later.

Importance of the Nicaean Council

The Nicene Creed is the basis of all other creeds. It’s difficult to overstate the importance of this moment. It was the first conciliar (worldwide) creed since Christianity began as a movement. It formed the basis of how conciliar counsels would function afterword. These counsels would help to define what is clearly taught in scripture on the most important matters of doctrine and faith.

The Nicene Creed would begin to formulate the standard for the definition of the Trinity. In affirming the divinity of Jesus the foundations for the Trinity were being laid in a clear way. Through the work of Athanasius and Basil (among others), they would provide the definitions and language to give clarity to the doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity is the most distinctive and important picture of God from the Christian faith. It may be no accident, but providential, that the ideas and concepts around this doctrine were the first to be creedally and universally formed.

The Nicene Creed brought greater order and unity to Christianity. With the Christian faith numbering perhaps as many as 15 million, existing on three continents and innumerable cultures; this was the first authoritative statement which was declared and enforced for the entire church. This further established the development of the church into the unity and diversity of the Trinity. With all of the beautiful and wonderful diversity which was the church before Nicaea, there would now be an increased unity or oneness to hold the diversity together.⁹

___________________________________________________________________________

Most historians of the Council of Nicaea begin their story with the fiery exchange of words between Arius and Alexander. But the discussion of the nature of Christ has a much longer history in the church. The great third-century theologian Origen, for example, pressed a bishop named Heraclides to define the relationship of Christ to God the Father. After much careful questioning, Heraclides admitted to believing in two Gods but clarified that “the power is one.” Origen reminded Heraclides that some Christians would “take offense at the statement that there are two Gods. We must express the doctrine carefully to show in what sense they are two, and in what sense the two are one God.”
Emperor Constantine’s letter to Alexander and Arius, which was sent through Hosius, the Bishop of Cordova: “Concerning divine providence, let there be among you one faith, one understanding, and one agreement about the Almighty. But as for the things which you discuss in detail with each other during your trivial inquiries, if you do not arrive at one conclusion, they should remain in your own head, kept hidden in the secret recesses of your mind. Indeed, let remarkable shared friendship, true faith, honor towards God, and observance of the law remain unshaken among you. Return to showing friendship and favor to one another. Embrace the whole people once again. When you have cleansed your own souls, acknowledge each other as brothers once again, for friendship is often pleasant after a hateful situation once it has reconciled.“
About 1,800 bishops were invited.
To quote Eusebius: “The most distinguished of God’s ministers from all the churches which abounded in Europe, Africa, and Asia assembled here. The one sacred building, as if stretched by God, contained people from [a very long list of nations]. There were more than 300 bishops, while the number of elders, deacons and the like was almost incalculable. Some of these ministers of God were eminent for their wisdom, some for the strict living, and patient endurance of persecution, and others for all three. Some were venerable because of their age, others were conspicuous for their youth and mental vigor, and others were only just appointed. The Emperor provided them all with plenty of food.”
Just before a decisive battle in 312, Constantine became the first emperor to convert to the faith of those who claimed to be Christ followers.
Generations of critics have accused him of manipulating the proceedings, jamming words into the creed, and generally trumping theology with politics, but in fact he mainly sat and listened. An ambitious politician and effective propagandist, Constantine had come to power in the usual swirl of conflict and intrigue.
The term “homoousios” breaks down from the Greek words “homos” meaning same and “ousia” meaning “of one substance” or “of one being.” Brought together as one word, “homoousios” means “of the same substance.” Other Greek words used in the debates at Nicaea—words unclear to speakers of non-Greek languages, such physis (nature), and prosopon (person)—bore meanings drawn from pre-Christian philosophers.
Most of the pastors, however, recognized that something more specific was needed to exclude the possibility of Arian teaching. For this purpose they produced another creed, probably from Palestine. Into it they inserted an extremely important series of phrases: “True God of true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father. . . . “
Following the Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople in 381, the Creed was further supplemented with the following: And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets. In one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
It is important to realize that the Nicaean Council sought to make clear what was in the scripture. There is nothing within the statements of the Council contributors or the Council statements which indicates that they saw themselves as doing nothing more than clarifying what is in scripture. They did not see themselves as an authority beside or alongside of scripture, but they saw scripture as their only authority.