It is an interesting thing that happens if you mention the Council of Nicea. What you may hear are New Agers claiming that Nicea unfairly eliminated the teaching of reincarnation; Jehovah’s Witnesses saying that the council thrust the false notion of the Trinity on Christians; religious liberals and secularists claiming that Nicea was the first time the deity of Christ was introduced; and Mormons saying that the council represents the epitome of the great apostasy from the pristine beliefs of the early church which Mormons alone hold to. Why is it that the Council of Nicea serves as such a lightening rod for those that oppose traditional Christianity? My thought is that Nicea, which is the most accepted council in church history—Luther called it “the most sacred of all councils”—fundamentally protects the deity of Christ. And, as we know, the deity of Christ is the most dangerous doctrine of Christianity and as such, is the most strongly opposed. Presto, Nicea must be attacked!

What Happened

On June 19, 325, the Council of Nicea was convened. It had only been fourteen years since persecutions against Christians had come to an end. Therefore, many of the bishops and others attending Nicea had bodily scars from the years of oppression by Rome. Emperor Constantine called the council to try and finalize a proper understanding of how the Father and Son were related to one another in the Godhead. To understand this issue it is helpful to know some of the background.

A well-liked, gifted teacher and presbyter from a suburb of Alexandria named Arius, in 318 began to teach an opposing view of Christ than was held by his bishop, Alexander. Alexander taught that Jesus existed eternally, being generated by the Father. Arius taught that “there was a time when the Son was not.” To Arius, Christ was highly exalted but still created and, therefore, part of the creation. Of course, Alexander strongly defended his position and Arius was declared a heretic in a local council in 321. This did not end the question.

Arius moved to Palestine where he energetically promoted his position. Arius was not only a gifted teacher, but he was a talented slogan and song writer. Arius was well-received and the debate became more intense. It eventually came to the attention of Constantine. Constantine yearned to unify his empire in every way possible and so he was desirous of putting an end to a schism that might deeply divide Christians. He officially called for the council.

The Council and Three Greek Words

According to tradition, there were 318 bishops who attended The Council of Nicea but that may be an elevated number. The majority came from the East, with less than a dozen representing the rest of the Empire.

The council was divided into three groups. Arius was there with a small group of supporters. This group represented the viewpoint that Christ was of a different substance (Greek: heteroousios) than the Father, that is, that He is a creature.

What we now call the "orthodox" group was principally led by Hosius of Cordova and Alexander of Alexandria. Along with Alexander was a brilliant and feisty young deacon named Athanasius. Their position was that Christ was of the same substance (Greek: homoousios) as the Father, that is, that He has eternally shared in the one essence of God and is fully divine.

The middle group, was led by Eusebius of Caesarea. They distrusted the term homoousios, mostly because it had been used in the previous century by the modalistic heretic named Sabellius who taught the error that the Father and the Son were one person (appearing in different modes). This middle group agreed with the orthodox party that Jesus was fully God, but they were concerned that the term homoousios could be misunderstood to support the false notion that the Father and Son are one person (note: a JW heresy). The middle group therefore favored the concept that the Son was of a similar substance (Greek: homoiousios) as the Father. By this means they hoped to avoid both the error of Arius as well as the perceived danger of Sabellianism found in the term homoousios.

Constantine and the Council

Jehovah’s Witnesses (and others) contend that Constantine forced the “same substance” concept on the council. This is not true. Later events demonstrate that he actually was much more pragmatic and was primarily eager to unite Christians around a compromise position. He certainly was not the person that originated the homoousios terminology.

The Decision

At first the bishops tried to use biblical language to define what they believed about the Father and Son. However, every time they came near a statement that was solely biblically-based the Arians would find a way to interpret it to express their position (note: heretics and false teacher are masters of twisting Scripture to fit their purposes). The bishops were forced to realize that they needed a term that would not be misrepresented and also underscore the full deity of Christ. Finally they settled on homoousios as a word that protected Christ’s divine nature from the Arian concept of Christ as created. In order to do this the orthodox bishops had to convince the middle group that the “one substance” term would not be used to support the modalist (Sabellians) heresy. In other words, the decision would not compromise the three Persons of the Trinity in order to secure the full deity of Christ. All the bishops signed on to the creed except Arius and two others.

The creed included an “anathema” which formally condemned those who rejected its truths. For the first time, church anathemas had the force of civil law and Arius and some of his group were banished for a short time. This set a precedent that had very large repercussions down through history but is a separate issue from the theological situation and decision at Nicea.

It is vitally important to remember that Nicea did not develop something new in its statement pertaining to the deity of Christ. There is abundant evidence from both the Apostles and early Church Fathers that from the most primitive times Christians have affirmed the divine nature of Christ. The council was not creating a new doctrine but defining a biblical truth against error.

Sixty Years of Struggle

Some people think that Nicea ended the controversy and that Constantine used his governmental apparatus to smash all opposition to the decision. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The fact is the Roman government didn't consistently support Trinitarian theology or its ardent defender, Athanasius. Constantine was all over the map in regard to Athanasius because he was more concerned about keeping the peace than in theology itself. He exiled Athanasius in 335 and was about to reinstate Arius just prior to his death. The reality is that later emperors forced an Arian view on the church in a much more straightforward way than Constantine had ever supported the Trinitarian view. Emperors Constantius II and Julian banished Athanasius and imposed Arianism on the empire. The emperor Constantius is recorded to have said, "Let whatsoever I will, be that esteemed a canon," equating his words with the authority of the church councils. Arians in general "tended to favor direct imperial control of the church." (Source: Noll, Mark, Turning Points: Decisive Moments in the History of Christianity). Jerome would later describe this moment in history as the time when "the whole world groaned and was astonished to find itself Arian."

It has been noted by church historians that theological movements that depend on political power rather than biblical truth tend to die out over time. This was true with Arianism. Even with the wind to their backs, the Arians engaged in infighting and by 381 the perseverance of Athanasius had helped turn the tide in favor of the orthodox position. In that year at the Council of Constantinople the Nicene Creed, complete with the homoousious clause was fully affirmed. The full deity of Christ was acknowledged, I reiterate, not because Nicea had declared it was so, but because Nicea was based on the bedrock of Scripture.