Tag Archives: Nicene Creed

04/13/18

Origins of the Nicene Creed

Constantine and the bishops of the first Council of Nicea holding the Niceno–Constantinopolitan Creed of 381. In the public domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=117976

What we know today as the “Nicene Creed” or “C” was the most influential creedal product to come out of the fourth century. According to Graham Keith in “The Formulation of Creeds in the Early Church,” within a short period of time, it became essentially the only baptismal creed used in all the Eastern churches. And for a time, it was also the baptismal creed for Rome and the Western churches. But ironically, even though it bears the Nicene name, it was not formulated at the Council of Nicea in 325.

Sometimes it is technically called the “Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed,” referring to the Council of Constantinople in 381, which was when and where it was formulated. However some scholars have theorized the original text of “C” was actually formulated at the Council of Chalcedon seventy years later in 451, where it said: “At the third session of the Council, on 10 October, the Nicene Creed having been publicly read and acclaimed, the imperial commissioners ordered ‘the faith of the 150 fathers’ to be read out too.”

What was read then at Chalcedon was C. One fact in support of the claim that the Nicene Creed was originally formed at Chalcedon is the glaring silence or lack of reference to C between Council of Constantinople in 381 and the Council of Chalcedon in 451. In all the back-and-forth letter writing and synods and councils, there isn’t any reference to C as there was to “N”, the original creed of Nicea. What seems to be the right explanation for what happened is that the Council of Constantinople did formulate C, but the gathered church leaders did not consider their revisions as composing a new creed.

“The faith of Nicea” was applied at the time before Chalcedon when referring to creeds that were essentially Nicene, but whose wording was sometimes radically different than N. The intent of church leaders gathered at the Council of Constantinople was to confirm the teaching or faith of the Nicene Creed, which it did. The lack of separate references to C from 381 until near 451 may also be understood by the fact that the pristine text of N wasn’t distinguished from C until the Council of Ephesus in 431.

“The whole style of the creed, its graceful balance and smooth flow, convey the impression of a liturgical piece which has emerged naturally in the life and worship of the Christian community” (rather than as the product of an ecclesiastical committee). Therefore C was probably already in existence and use somewhere when the Council took it up, touched it up for their purposes, including “the special heresies it felt itself called upon to refute” and approved it as the Council’s affirmation of “the faith of Nicea.” J.N.D. Kelly speculated it was originally a local baptismal creed from the Antioch or Jerusalem family of creeds.

“Unlike the purely Western Apostles’ Creed, it was admitted as authoritative in the East and the West alike from 451 onward, and it has retained that position, with one significant variation in its text (the addition of the filioque clause), right down to the present day.” It became the baptismal creed of the East and the Eucharistic creed of all Christendom. In the following centuries, there was a growing emphasis on the basic identity of the two creeds, N and C.

Creed of Nicea “N”

Constantinopolitan Creed “C”

We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible;

We believe in one God the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible;

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through Whom all things came into being, things in heaven and things on earth, Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down and became incarnate, becoming man, suffered and rose again on the third day, ascended to the heavens, and will come to judge the living and the dead;

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten from the Father before all the ages, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through Whom all things came into existence, Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man, and was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried, and rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures and ascended to heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father, and will come again with glory to judge living and dead, of Whose kingdom there will be no end;

And in the Holy Spirit.

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and life-giver, Who proceeds from the Father [and the Son], Who with the Father and the Son is together worshipped and together glorified, Who spoke through the prophets; in one holy Catholic and apostolic Church. We confess one baptism to the remission of sins; we look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

But as for those who say, There was when He was not, and, Before being born He was not, and that He came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance, or is created, or is subject to alteration or change—these the Catholic Church anathematizes. 

When you compare the two creeds in the above chart, there are some notable omissions in C that are not easy to explain if C was a version of N. These differences are, a) “that is from the substance of the Father”; b) “God from God”; c) “things in heaven and things on earth”; and d) the anathemas.  In the Creedal comparison chart, the phrases from N that were left out of C are in bold italic print. The additions to C not found in N are in bold print. The anathemas of Arianism in the original Creed of Nicea, “N,” were omitted in “C.” There are also various other differences like word order and sentence structure that make it difficult to say C is a modified version of N. So what’s going on here?

Several years before the Council of Constantinople, Basil the Great of Caesarea thought that a needed addition to the Nicene faith would be something elaborating on the Holy Spirit, because it only briefly mentioned Him. Apparently this was because He had not been the subject of any doctrinal disputes in the church by 325. The Arian controversy had kept questions about the status of the Holy Spirit in the background. But by the decade of the 350s, “His true nature and position began to be matters of public discussion.” So when the Council of Constantinople met in 381, one of the issues they intended to address was “To bring the Church’s teaching about the Holy Spirit in line with what was believed about the Son.”

“The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed rebutted the heresies of the Pneumatomachi (who believed the Spirit was a created being; one of the ministering angels) as well as all Arians (who believed the Son/Word/Logos was not coeternal with the Father). It did this simply by affirming divine titles like ‘Lord’ which are used of the Spirit in Scripture, and it dealt with the difficult question of the Spirit’s mode of origin by declaring that ‘He proceeds from the Father’.” It also added the phrase, “whose kingdom shall have no end” at the end of the clause about Jesus Christ in order to counter Marcellus’ teaching. In the prefix to a letter accompanying the text of the “91 Canons of Constantinople,” which was sent to the Emperor Theodosius I, was the following. Theodosius I, who was the last emperor to rule over both the eastern and western halves of the Roman Empire, had summoned the council.

Having then assembled at Constantinople according to the letter of your Piety, we in the first place renewed our mutual regard for each other, and then pronounced some short definitions, ratifying the faith of the Nicene Fathers, and anathematizing the heresies which have sprung up contrary to it. In addition to this we have established certain canons for the right ordering of the Churches, all of which we have subjoined to this our letter. We pray therefore your Clemency, that the decree may be confirmed by the letter of your Piety, that as you have honoured the Church by the letters calling us together, so also you may ratify the conclusion of what has been decreed. That the faith of the 318 Fathers [the original Nicene Creed of 325] who assembled at Nicaea in Bithynia, is not to be made void, but shall continue established; and that every heresy shall be anathematized, and especially that of the Eunomians or Anomoeans, and that of the Arians or Eudoxians, and that of the Semiarians or Pneumatomachi, and that of the Sabellians and Marcellians, and that of the Photinians, and that of the Apollinarians.

The addition of the filioque clause (and from the Son) was favored by Hilary, Ambrose, Jerome and Augustine (354-430). It was first inserted into C by the Council of Toledo in 589. It became part of the creedal pattern in the Western churches and a matter of contention between the West and the East that persists to the present day. Augustine saw the Trinity as one simple Godhead, who in its essence was Trinity. “The logical development of his thought was that ‘the Holy Spirit proceeded as truly from the Son as from the Father.’” This way of thinking about the Trinity became universally accepted in the West in the 5th and 6th centuries. So the addition of the phrase “and the Son” (filioque) became known as the doctrine of the double procession, the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son. Starting in the sixth century, C was the declaratory creed used in the Roman baptismal rite until the Apostles’ Creed was adopted several centuries later.

In contrast, the Eastern understanding followed Gregory of Nyssa, who said one of the Persons of the Trinity stood as cause to the other two. Therefore, the Eastern churches would say the Spirit proceeded from the Father through the Son, who was the Father’s instrument or agent.  Philip Schaff, in The Creeds of Christendom said the Greek Church remains as much opposed to the filioque clause today as ever, considering it to be an “unauthorized, heretical, and mischievous innovation.” He noted where the Eastern Patriarchs and other prelates gave no less than fifteen arguments against the filioque in their 1848 reply to “The Epistle of Pius IX.”

Information on the creeds and heresies discussed here was taken primarily from Early Christian Creeds and Early Christian Doctrines by J. N. D. Kelly; A History of Heresy by David Christie-Murray; and The Canon of the New Testament by Bruce Metzger. For more on the early creeds and heresies of the Christian church, see the link: “Early Creeds.”

04/3/18

Arianism and the Council of Nicea

© Niccolo Talenti | 123rf.com – baptistery of the Arians in Ravenna, Italy

Before the beginning of the 4th century, all creeds and summaries of faith were local ones; even the Old Roman Creed. It was taken for granted they enshrined the faith as it had been handed down from the Apostles. Beginning with the Council of Nicea, synods or gatherings of ecclesiastics began to meet in order to articulate their agreement on matters of faith. These new creeds were intended to have a far wider application than mere local authority.

As one scholar put it, “The old creeds were creeds for catechumens, the new creed was a creed for bishops.” Older creeds were associated with baptismal confessions, while testing orthodoxy was the primary motive in the new type of creed. And the proliferation of heretical sects like the Arians in the third century brought the need for such an ecumenical declaration of orthodox belief to the attention of the Church leaders of the early fourth century. When the ecumenical synod called by Constantine formulated the creed of Nicea, it became the first to rightly claim universal authority.

The opening session of the Nicean Council was on June 19, 325. There were around three hundred bishops and hundreds of lesser clergy and laymen in attendance. One of the most important orthodox influences was a young priest among the lesser clergy from Alexandria named Athanasius.

Soon after he conquered the Eastern provinces, the Emperor Constantine organized the Council to resolve the Arian controversy and consolidate the Church on the widest possible measure of doctrinal unity. He viewed the Church as the spiritual sphere of his empire, and he wanted it to be without conflict as well. Accordingly, the emperor’s opening address focused on the danger of internal strife in the Church, and voiced his longing for peace and unity among the bishops. The bishops in attendance assumed from the beginning the circumstances called for an agreed statement of faith.

At the third session of the Council on October 10th, the drafted creed of Nicea was read aloud to the assembly. Emperor Constantine said it sounded entirely orthodox to him, and he held to exactly the same teaching. He said the bishops in attendance should sign it, and suggested the addition of a single word, homoousios or “consubstantial,” meaning of the same substance (It’s found in the clauses, “from the substance of the Father” and “of one substance with the Father”). The use of the term homoousios was in clear opposition to Arian belief that the Son was alien from the Father’s substance. But the term was also not used in Scripture.

Athanasius, who had a significant influence in the final anti-Arian content of the creed, said the Arians had twisted the original use of scriptural language by saying the Son was “from God,” and He was “the true Power and Image of the Father” to harmonize with their own beliefs. So while the terms were biblical, they could be imputed by the Arians with their own particular meaning if used in the creed. A semi-Arian compromise was suggested, using homoiusion (of like substance), instead of homoousios. But Athanasius recognized there could be no middle term between ‘God’ and ‘not-God.’ He persuaded a considerable majority of the Council to reject both Arian and semi-Arian language in the creedal formulation.

In the end, the Nicene bishops were forced to use the non-scriptural term homoousios in the clauses noted above to be unambiguous as to what they meant, as the Arians had co-opted the Scriptural terms noted above to support their theological beliefs about Christ. Arius and two others chose to be exiled rather than sign their name to the creed. Eusebius of Nicomedia and two others later rescinded their signatures and were sent into exile as well. All the other bishops signed off on the creed of Nicea. The following discussion points to the rationale for using some of the anti-Arian phrases within the creed of Nicea.

Arius said the substances of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are different and have no share in each other. Saying Jesus Christ was “true God from true God” denied the Arian claim that only the Father was “true God,” while Arius said:  “Nor is the Word true God.” The next phrase, “begotten not made,” distinguished between begotten and made, which the Arians did not. Saying Jesus was of “one substance with the Father,” asserted the full deity of the Son, thus completely rejecting the Arian position. All the phrases in the anathemas challenged typical Arian catchwords or slogans. See the following chart.

Creed of Nicea

Arius’s Creed

We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible;

We believe in one God the Father almighty,

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through Whom all things came into being, things in heaven and things on earth, Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down and became incarnate, becoming man, suffered and rose again on the third day, ascended to the heavens, and will come to judge the living and the dead;

And in the Lord Jesus Christ, his son, the God-logos, Who was begotten from Him before all the ages, through Whom all things came into being, things in heaven and things on earth, Who came down and took flesh and suffered and rose again, ascended to heaven, and will come again to judge living and dead;

And in the Holy Spirit.

And in the Holy Spirit, and in the resurrection of the flesh, and in the life of the coming age, and in the kingdom of heaven, and in one catholic church of God from end to end of the earth.

But as for those who say, There was when He was not, and, Before being born He was not, and that He came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance, or is created, or is subject to alteration or change—these the Catholic Church anathematizes.

The creed of Nicea went further than Eusebius and other had anticipated it would, not only with the addition of homoousios, but also the anathemas at the end. After saying Jesus Christ was “from the substance of the Father,” and “of one substance with the Father,” the concluding anathemas were seemingly a knockout blow for Arianism. But the creed of Nicea was rarely referred to in the Western Church for a generation after Nicea.

First and foremost, it was a creed for bishops—formulated to address a doctrinal crisis in the church. It was not initially intended to replace the existing baptismal confessions used within the local churches. Secondly, there was a widespread ignorance of the relevant documents of the Arian controversy in the West, including the creed itself. One probable reason was because the earliest Latin translation of the documents was not done until 355. By 325 there was a Western-Latin, Eastern-Greek language barrier in place within both the Roman Empire and the Church. Another likely reason was because Arius and his beliefs weren’t completely vanquished by the Creed of Nicea.

In 327 Arius and Euzious submitted a creed to Constantine (see the above chart), hoping to be readmitted to the Church. Arius said his creedal statement of faith was based on the Holy Scriptures, where the Lord commanded them to go teach all nations, baptizing them in the three-fold name. “Yet it can scarcely be claimed that his formula was more than distantly related to [then] current baptismal forms.” His creed seems to have been a concoction based on the original 325 creed of Nicea, however it carefully excluded the distinctive teaching of Nicea. Notice how the Christological article and voice is either missing or radically rephrased by Arius in his creed, especially avoiding the confession of being one substance with the Father.

Incredibly, his strategy worked. Constantine accepted his creed and reinstated Arius in the church. Remember what was said earlier about how Constantine (and other Roman emperors after him) wanted a united Church undisrupted by warring theological factions. “So from the first recognition of Christianity by the Emperor Constantine in AD 313, politics and religious orthodoxy [often] went hand in hand.”

Then in 328 Eusebius of Nicomedia was recalled from exile AND became a trusted advisor to Constantine. “The Emperor completely reversed his position.” From then onwards there was a purge conducted against Nicene bishops. The culmination was when Athansius, now bishop of Alexandria, was removed from office and driven from his see in 335. This was the first of five times Athansius would be exiled from his position over the next several decades of political and ecclesiastical turmoil.

Arius died in 336; and Constantine died two years later in 338. For a time, there was peace with the empire as it was divided between Constantine’s three sons. The exiled bishops, including Athanasius, were returned to their sees. But in 339, Eusebius of Nicomedia became the Patriarch of Constantinople, and he again expelled Athanasius from Alexandria. Athansius went to Rome, where he was received and supported by Pope Julius I. After Eusebius of Nicomedia died in 341, Athansius again returned to Alexandria in 346.

Eventually, one of Constantine’s sons, Constantius, became the sole ruler of the Empire in 356. Unfortunately, he was anti-Nicene and imposed those beliefs on all the domains of the now united Empire. Athansius was once again exiled in 356.

In 361 Constantius died and Athansius returned briefly to Alexandria, only to be “sent on his travels” within the year. Yet before his exile in 362, Athansius helped forge a formula at a synod held in Alexandria that said the Godhead contained one substance (substantia) and three persons (persona). “A specific doctrine of the Spirit was also agreed, that he was not a creature and was inseparable from the Father and the Son.” This distinction became a crucial element in the formulation drafted at the second ecumenical synod at Constantinople in 381.

The Emperor who replaced Constantius was known as “Julian the Apostate.” He tolerated all Christian sects, in the hopes that they would destroy one another. Towards that end, he recalled the orthodox bishops from exile, including Athanasius, who returned to Alexandria in 263. Perhaps fortunately for the Church and the Empire, Julian died after reigning for just two years.

Although several different councils or synods were held between 341 and the Council of Constantinople in 381, none were as broadly ecumenical as the Council of Nicea. An historian commented that the imperial transport system was repeatedly disrupted by the bishops traveling to-and-fro from the various synods that were held.

Adding to this theological and political tangle was the emergence of heretical beliefs concerning the Holy Spirit, such as those of the Pneumatomachian. Initially, they did not garner much attention, as the church Fathers were focused on their struggles with the theological, political and ecclesiastical consequences of Arianism.

Orthodox thinking held that if the Son was fully divine, it followed that the Spirit was divine also. The Pneumatomachi (meaning “Spirit Fighters”) denied this. They said there was a lack of evidence for the Spirit’s deity. Further, they saw no warrant for adding another relationship to those of the Father and the Son within the Godhead. They typically saw the Trinity as a hierarchy, allowing the Son to be less than the Father and the Spirit to be created. The Alexandrian synod held by Athansius in 362 was the first to condemn the Pneumatomachi.

Their origin has been attributed to Marcellus bishop of Ancyra, in Galatia, who believed the relationship of Sonship in the Godhead was limited to the Incarnation and would disappear when its purposes were accomplished. Marcellus was one of the bishops at the Council of Nicea in 325 and a strong opponent of Arianism. He seems to have been a life long “frienemy” with Athanasius. But he was accused of Sabellianism, exiled and condemned by a synod in Constantinople in 336. He went to Rome and with the help of Athanasius, he was cleared of  “the falsehood of Sabellius” in 341.

He was again removed from his see in 347 by Constantius and died in exile in 374. Several Eastern creeds formulated in the 340s and 350s contained anti-Marcellan clauses. But the controversy over his doctrines, to a large extent, passed away after his death. However, the Nicene Creed seems to have added the phrase “whose kingdom shall have no end” in order to counter Marcellus’ teaching.

The Arian controversy had kept questions about the status of the Holy Spirit in the background. But some church fathers like Basil the Great of Caesarea had begun to realize a change was needed within the Nicene faith, as the 325 Creed only briefly mentioned the Spirit. This eventually led to the Council of Constantinople in 381 and the formulation of what is the modern Nicene Creed. For more on the early creeds and heresies of the Christian church, see the link: “Early Creeds.”