The First Council of Nicaea in AD 325

The Arian Controversy

This was at the top of the list of questions to settle. The word, Arian, is not used in the modern sense, but is named for Arius, a priest of Alexandria, Egypt.

So what did Arius do or teach that had the Church at large, so upset? The following information is taken from the letters of Arius himself.

God has not always been a Father, and that there was a time when the Son was not; that the Son is a creature like the others; that he is mutable by his nature; that by his free will he chose to remain virtuous, but that he might change like others. He said that Jesus Christ was not true God but divine by participation, like all others to whom the name of God is attributed. He added that he was not the substantial Word of the Father and his proper wisdom by which he had made all things, but that he was himself made by the eternal wisdom; that he is foreign in everything from the substance of the Father; that we were not made for him but he for us, when it was the pleasure of God, who was before alone, to create us; that he was made by the will of God, as others are, having no previous existence at all, since he is not a proper and natural production of the Father but an effect of his grace. The Father, he continued, is invisible to the Son, and the Son cannot know him perfectly, nor, indeed, can he know his own substance.

 

A summary of what Arius is saying would be helpful.

“There was a time when the Son was not.” He taught that Jesus, the Son of God, was not eternal, directly contradicting John 1:1. Which leads us to the next point.

“The Son is a creature like the others.” The Son not only was not eternal, but was a created being.

“He is mutable by his nature.” The Son is prone to change. An absolute denial of what the book of Hebrews states, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.” [Heb. 13:8]

“Jesus Christ was not true God but divine by participation, like all others to whom the name of God is attributed.” Jesus, the Son was not true God, but only participated in the divine, as do all those who claim the name of God, i.e., those born of the Spirit.

The Son “was not the substantial Word of the Father and his proper wisdom by which he had made all things, but that he was himself made by the eternal wisdom; that he is foreign in everything from the substance of the Father;”

“We were not made for him but he for us, when it was the pleasure of God, who was before alone, to create us; that he was made by the will of God, as others are, having no previous existence at all.” A denial of Col. 1:16-17.

The Father is “invisible to the Son, and the Son cannot know him perfectly.” This contradicts John 10:15; 17:25.

So Arius taught that the Son was a creature, like all created things. There was a time when the Son did not exist. The Son cannot fully know the Father. For just these two points, there are many Biblical texts which repudiate all these listed above. However, our purpose here is not to fight an old war over again. This simply shows why the majority of Church leaders were ready to go to war over such blasphemies. This was a hill that they were ready to die on.

Finally, the first day of the great council came. Constantine addressed the council with passion and encouragement to seek the peace of the Church. A brief quote of his opening statement will suffice us here. He stated that the business of those present,

was with matters of theology, the decision of which depended on the instructions which the Holy Spirit had left them. The gospels, the letters of the apostles, and the works of the ancient prophets, teach us with sufficient clearness what we are obliged to believe concerning the divine nature. Let us then renounce all angry contentions and seek in the books which the Holy Ghost has dictated the solution of our doubts. (Eusebius, 396)

 

It is important to note that Constantine encourages the Council to allow the books which the Holy Spirit had left them, i.e., the gospels, the letters of the apostles, and the works of the ancient prophets, to guide them in what should be believed. This would have been the perfect segway into a debate about which writings were given by the Holy Spirit. But there was no debate.

He states that it is in these writings we received a “sufficient clearness what we are obliged to believe concerning the divine nature.”

The first order of business to occur was to hear the positions of Arius. After this was done, we have this.

The other bishops, beyond comparison the greater number, mildly required them to give an account of their doctrine and to support it by suitable proofs. But no sooner had they begun to speak than they seemed to be at variance with themselves; they remained confounded, and seeing the absurdity of their heresy, confessed their shame by their silence. (ibid.)

 

Those bishops who stood against such heresy were the greater number. After hearing their heretical position, they “mildly required” the Arians to give support to their arguments with suitable proofs. As some of the Arians began to speak, others of their side would interrupt in disagreement, showing they were “at variance with themselves.” The Arians began to argue among themselves to the degree, that they embarrassed themselves before the emperor and the whole council. Afterwards, they sat down in silence and shame.

The party of the Arians did submit a confession of faith to the council. Upon reading this confession of faith, it “was torn on being read and pronounced to be spurious and false.”

The orthodox bishops suggested a word which can describe the relation of the Son to the Father. They stated,

But the Son of God was considered not only similar to the substance of the Father but inseparable from it—the Word being always in the Father and the Father in the Word.

 

The orthodox proposed to use the word, ὁμοούσιον, (homoosion) which means of the same substance, sometimes written as consubstantial. Of course, the supporters of Arius rejected this term, but they were vastly outnumbered.

An initial vote was taken to accept this term as descriptive of the Son’s relationship with the Father. At first, out of the 318 bishops in attendance, 17 refused to accept it. Later, that number was reduced to just 5. In the end, the writings and teachings of Arius was condemned, as he was also.