The Ascending Church: A Theodosius and the Council of Constantinople

**depiction of the Council of Constantinople**

Emperor Theodosius, who lived from 347–395, was a man with a singular ambition: to unite the Roman Empire not just politically, but spiritually, under the banner of Nicene Christianity.¹ Upon ascending the throne in 379 AD, he sought to consolidate the church under the affirmation of the Nicene Creed. Theodosius assembled 150 bishops in 381 AD to settle the Arian controversy, which had put the very doctrine of the Trinity at risk.² As the great emperor entered the hall, the air was not one of harmony, but of simmering tension. He saw men like Gregory of Nazianzus, a brilliant but frail theologian, who bore the weight of biblical truth with a heavy heart. He saw Meletius of Antioch, a powerful figure, who had been a source of division.³ He observed the Macedonian bishops, who arrived late in protest, their faces defiant, ready to challenge his very authority. Theodosius’s first act was not to decree, but to observe. He listened to the arguments, the impassioned speeches, and the subtle maneuvers of both sides of this momentous debate. This was not a battlefield to be won with swords, but a spiritual arena where the mind and the soul held sway.

In this article we will see how this second great council of the church further articulated and universally affirmed the doctrine of Trinity. This would provide a further basis for the advance of God’s Story of Grace where God’s image of a mutual and self-giving love to expand and be lived out on the earth. Further, as Rome would begin to fracture, the Church would become the new unifying center of civilization which would allow God’s image, reflected in the Trinity, to further transform civilization. Theodosius was the emperor who would, after Constantine, lay the ground work to make this possible.

The First Council of Constantinople

The Council of Constantinople was led by Miletus. When he died unexpectedly, Gregory of Nazianzus, who was recently installed as the bishop of Constantinople, was elected to preside. He spoke with fiery eloquence, defending the divinity of the Holy Spirit, in full equality with the Father and the Son. This had been an aspect of the Nicene Creed which was not addressed and still stirred fervent debate. But old rivalries ran deep. Gregory’s authority was challenged by a cabal of bishops who refused to be commanded by a theological rival. Exhausted and disheartened by the infighting, Gregory resigned. To replace Gregory, the council quickly installed Nectarius, a Roman official, who quickly became baptized in order to be the new bishop of Constantinople. Though lacking Gregory’s theological clout, Nectarius was a symbol of imperial favor and political stability.

In the end, it became clear that the work of the bishops was not to create a new document, but to expand upon the one formulated at Nicaea decades earlier. They condemned Arianism, but their most significant work was the clear articulation of the Holy Spirit’s divinity. The bishops, in need of a cohesive faith, arrived at a new consensus. The Constantinopolitan Creed, as it came to be known, was not merely a decree from an emperor but a statement of faith articulated by the Church itself. When the council concluded, Theodosius knew he had achieved his goal: the further strengthening and unification of the Church.

Major Outcomes

The divinity of the Holy Spirit is affirmed forever securing belief in the Trinity. In the original Nicene Creed of 325 reads:

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,
of one essence 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 Pontus 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.

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,⁴ 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.

Theodosius expanded the unity of the Roman Empire with a deepening Christian commitments. This was vital as the Roman Empire would come under increasing attack from German tribes like the Visigoths, Ostrogoths, and Vandals, as well as the Huns. This ultimately created a domino effect of invasions and migrations as the political structure of Rome began to disintegrate, with the last emperor deposed in 479. It was Theodosius who consolidated the empire under the Council of Constantinople and would further push efforts to expand Christian reforms and policies that had begun under Constantine.⁵ Ironically, his reforms would provide a basis for Christianity to organically spread as the barbarian tribes came into contact with Rome. They converted to Christ, in part, because paganism had been forced into increasing decline.

The reign of Theodosius was not perfect by any measure. But in the expansion of God’s Story of Grace, his reforms and leadership led to the further realization of Revelation 11:15:

“The kingdom of the world has become
the kingdom of our Lord and of his Messiah,
and he will reign for ever and ever.”

______________________________________________________________________________

Nicene Christianity affirmed the Council of Nicaea’s declaration that Jesus Christ was “very God of very God,” meaning that he was co-substantial (of the same substance) with the Father, “begotten and not made.” This was distinct against Arianism which promoted the idea that Jesus Christ was a created being, less in than the Father.
The council did formally use the term Trinity, the council’s work was built upon the Council of Nicaea (325 AD), and together they confirmed the divinity of the Son and added the divinity of the Holy Spirit to the creed, affirming the Trinitarian view that is central to Christian orthodoxy today.
He served as the first president of the council but died shortly after the proceedings began. Meletius of Antioch (Greek: Μελέτιος, Meletios) was a Christian patriarch from Antioch from 360 until his death in 381. He was opposed by a rival bishop named Paulinus II and his ministry was dominated by the division and argument, usually called the Meletian schism. As a result, he was exiled from Antioch in 361–362, 365–366 and 371–378.
The term “Catholic” mean universal church and is not limited to the Roman Catholic Church. In fact, this creed and council favored the leaders and churches at Constantinople over the leaders and churches of Rome.
In some cases his reforms were too harsh against pagans, but in making the Empire more Christian, it provided an environment for missions and Christian philanthropy to spread.

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.

How A Band Of Brothers Forged The Church’s Most Important Doctrine: The Trinity (Matthew 28:19)

**depiction of the Cappadocian Fathers**

A golden age of biblical exploration and theological development occurred in the fourth century with a band of Christian leaders known as the Cappadocian Fathers: Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus. Their stories and their theological contributions are intertwined. They lived full and adventurous lives as not only theologians but as leaders of the church. But their most important contribution to God’s Story of Grace was solidifying Trinitarian truth for all time–the bedrock of Orthodoxy.¹From the area of Cappadocia (an area of modern Turkey), these three men refined our understanding of the biblical revelation of the meaning of God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Their work helped to establish the formula of one God existing in three persons. (one ousia=essence in three hypostasis=person).

In this article we will look at the distinctive contribution of each man to the doctrine of the Trinity and then look at the big implications of this doctrine in the shaping of God’s Story in the world.

Trinitarian Theologians

All three were born after the First Council of Nicaea (325) and so entered into the life of the church in the midst of its aftereffects. The Council of Nicaea did not cease opposition to those upholding the truth it affirmed, namely: Jesus is fully God equal to the Father, very God of very God. On the contrary, in many ways opposition increased. Followers of Arius continued to press a reduced view of the Son claiming that the Son is created, and thus less, than the Father. In fact, by the time the Cappadocian Fathers were on the scene, the new level of attack by the Arians was to claim that the Holy Spirit is a created being, as well.²The opposition theologically created persecution politically. Arianism, for the next half a century, was backed by the emperors after Constantine– three of them being Constantine’s sons. The bishops who held to Arianism were able to hold seats of influence and power in the church. Because of this the three Cappadocians Fathers experienced serious and sustained resistance and harassment. Nonetheless, their arguments for the deity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit would prevail, and their theological and biblical insights for understanding how God exists as one God in three persons would forever be the standard clarification of biblical revelation. This would be later affirmed at the Council of Constantinople (381).

Cappadocian Fathers

Basil of Caesarea 330-379 **(ousia and hypostasis)**

To counter heresies like Arianism, Basil emphasized the distinction between the terms ousia (Greek word for essence) and hypostasis (Greek word for person). These words had been used synonymously; Basil was the first to make a distinction.³ In 377 a man named Amphilochius wrote to Basil and asked him to explain the distinction between ousia and hypostasis. Basil responded with the following:

The distinction between essence [ousia] and hypostasis is the same as that between the general and the particular; as, for instance, between [humanity] and the particular [man]. Therefore, concerning the divinity, we confess one essence [ousia]…; but the hypostasis, on the other hand, is particularizing, in order that our conception of Father, Son and Holy Spirit may be unconfused and clear.

Basil’s analysis is helpful as it utilizes a distinction with which we are all familiar. We all know the difference between describing a person as a human being (one who is a member of the human race) and identifying him as a distinct individual (e.g., Bob Smith). But the analogy should not be pushed too far.⁴ They are distinguished not by their substance but how they exist to and with one another.

**Gregory of Nazianzus 330–391 (homousia of the Holy Spirit)**

He significantly extended the case for the full divinity of the Holy Spirit, affirming his co-eternal and co-equal status with the Father and the Son. He did this by directly linking the Spirit’s redemptive actions to his divine nature, arguing that only God could perform God-level tasks like sanctification and rebirth which brings the believer into the likeness of God. His argument is that the Holy Spirit is homoousia (of the same essence) with the Father and the Son. To deny the Spirit’s divine essence, he reasoned, would undermine the Trinity and the economy of salvation leading to an incomplete or imperfect Godhead. In salvation and sanctification, the Holy Spirit makes believers “like God.” If the Holy Spirit were a created being–indwelling believers–they would be filled with a creature, who could not make them like divinity. Gregory declared, “If he has the same rank as I have, how can he make me God, how can he link me with deity?” But the Holy Spirit is able to make us like God since he is God.

In this respect, The Holy Spirit causes believers to participate in the very life and reality of the Trinity and makes that very life known and experienced to the Christian. He writes forcefully on this point in his Fifth Theological Oration making several key points. I will break his statements down into four categories:

Category 1: The Holy Spirit is joined with Christ in every step of his ministry.

Look at the facts: Christ is born, the Spirit is his forerunner; Christ is baptized, the Spirit bears him witness; Christ is tempted, the Spirit leads him up; Christ performs miracles, the Spirit accompanies him; Christ ascends, the Spirit fills his place. Is there any significant function belonging to God, which the Spirit does not perform?

Category 2: The Holy Spirit is given exalted titles.

Is there any title belonging to God, which cannot apply to him…He is called “Spirit of God,” “Spirit of Christ,” “Mind of Christ,” “Spirit of the Lord,” and “Lord” absolutely; “Spirit of Adoption,” “of Truth,” “of Freedom”; “Spirit of Wisdom,” “Understanding,” “Counsel,” “Might,” “Knowledge,” “True Religion” and of “The Fear of God.”

Category 3: This Spirit of God fills and sustains the universe.

The Spirit indeed effects all these things, filling the universe with his being, sustaining the universe. His being “fills the world,” his power is beyond the world’s capacity to contain it. It is his nature, not his given function, to be good, to be righteous and to be in command. He is the subject, not the object, of hallowing, apportioning, participating, filling, sustaining; we share in him and he shares in nothing.

Category 4: The Holy Spirit performs all the actions as the Father.

All that God actively performs, he performs. Divided in fiery tongues, he distributes graces, makes Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers. He is “intelligent, manifold, clear, distinct, irresistible, unpolluted”—or in other words, he is utterly wise, his operations are multifarious, he clarifies all things distinctly, his authority is absolute and he is free from mutability. He is “all-powerful, overseeing all and penetrating through all spirits that are intelligent and pure and most subtle”—meaning, I think, angelic powers as well as prophets and Apostles. He penetrates them simultaneously, though they are distributed in various places; which shows that he is not tied down by spatial limitations.

**Gregory of Nyssa 335–394 (distinction but not separation of the hypostasis)**

Gregory of Nyssa’s key contribution to this effort was defining the complete unity of the Trinity relating and functioning within the distinctive ways of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. He explained that every divine action from creation to the governance of the universe is a single motion that proceeds in one direction with all persons of the Trinity. Within the unified motion of God there are distinctions of person but not separation.⁵ In this way he was able to highlight the relational interaction and dynamic of the personhood of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. For this reason he worked to more clearly define the working order or sequencing⁶ of the Trinity as seen in the scriptures:

The Son Proceeds From the Father

¹⁴The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth…¹⁸No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known. (John 1:14, 18)

…yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. (1 Corinthians 8:6)

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

The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son and the Father

¹⁶And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— ¹⁷the Spirit of truth. (John 14:16-17)

But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. (John 14:26)

“When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me. (John 15:26)

Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. (John 16:7)

³²God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it. ³³Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear. (Acts 2:32-33)

The Holy Spirit glorified the Father and the Son

¹³But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. ¹⁴He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. ¹⁵All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.” (John 16)

It is clear from these scriptures that the three divine persons know and love each other. In this love, they are in communion with each other, and freely act together in their common will and purpose.

What Does This Mean?

The Trinity is revealed and understood through history. God continues to make himself known more fully in the relational progress of history. It is only through the outworking of the human experience that we are able to experience, understand and appreciate God’s Story of Grace. What is the reason for this? Finite humans can only perceive the infinite God gradually and can only worship relationally–in real experience. As Gregory Nazianzus wrote in his Fifth Oration: You see how light shines on us bit by bit, you see in the doctrine of God an order, which we had better observe, neither revealing it suddenly nor concealing it to the last. To reveal it suddenly would be clumsy… For God to reveal too much at one time would have created confusion rather than revelation. This is why history itself is the progression of gradual and relational experience, and God makes himself known this way.

The Trinity is the direction and shape of history. God’s decisive acts of creation and redemption are unfolding through the entire scope of history reclaiming and transforming everything to participate in the likeness of the Trinity. It is a movement toward a mutual and self-giving love, a balance of respect for the one (hypostasis) and many (ousia). This makes it fitting that the doctrine and understanding of the Trinity would itself be progressively hammered out and defined in a historical process. It is also fitting that the foundational ecumenical creeds of Nicaea and Constantinople are anchored to these most central and beautiful truths about God–one essence (ousia) in three persons (hypostasis).

____________________________________________________________________________

In ancient Greek, the word “ortho-” means straight or correct. The word “doxa” means judgment or belief. Orthodoxy basically means correct belief which is in the spirit of Jude 1:3: I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people.
While some anti-Nicenes continued to object to Nicaea, many who wanted to ecclesiastically fall in line with the Nicene decision and its implicit support by Constantine shifted their arguments against the full divinity of the Son to a denial of the full divinity of the Holy Spirit. This was their way of straddling the fence in the controversy.
Hypostasis brings together the two words: ὑπό (hupo), meaning “under” or “beneath,” and στάσις (stásis), meaning “a standing” or “position.” This is an excellent words for the personal distinctions of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit underneath or existing in the one essence of God.
As we have seen, Basil is insistent that the divine substance is incomprehensible. “We do not know what God is in his essence, what kind of being he is, because ultimately he is not a kind of being at all.”
There are several scriptures which witness to this relational unity: ¹⁶As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. ¹⁷And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” (Matthew 3:16-17); For it is we who are the circumcision, we who serve God by his Spirit, who boast in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh (Philippians 3:3); ⁴There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. ⁵There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. ⁶There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work. (1 Corinthians 12:4-6); who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood (1 Peter 1:2).
Gregory defined this ordering or sequencing by the Greek word (táxis) means “order,” “arrangement,” or “rank.” The word comes from the verb tássein (“to arrange” or “to set in order”) and originally described military formations before being applied to other contexts, such as the movement of organisms in response to stimuli.

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.