The Council of Nicea
The story of the Council of Nicea starts with a priest named Arius and a bishop named Alexander in a city called Alexandria.
The Background
The year was 318, and Christianity was enjoying a huge revival (that
is, if you're okay with me calling a huge influx of unconverted pagans
into the church a revival). The Great Persecution—only
the 2nd empire-wide persecution and easily the longest—had ended with
Galerius' Edict of Toleration in 311 followed by Constantine's Edict of
Milan in 313.
Fresco of the Council of Nicea
Throughout the 3rd century, Christianity was rapidly becoming more
formal. The churches were more organized, leadership had grown larger
and more structured as the Church increased in size, and more and more
rules were used to keep Christian conduct in line.
In the past,
during the apostolic era and the 2nd century, relationships and knowing
one another had provided restraint in Christian's lives. Rules are never
as effective as love and peer pressure, so the discipline of the Church
and Christians in it had eroded.
Alexander the Metropolitan
Alexander was more than just a bishop. He was a "Metropolitan."
Metropolitans were in leadership over multiple congregations in large
cities and surrounding villages. In the early fourth century, the
bishops of Rome and Alexandria were the two most powerful metropolitans.
The First Council of Nicea, only 7 years in the future, would confirm
their authority over country-size areas around their city.
A council that Alexander and Arius made necessary.
(I
can't give you a better reference for that last paragraph than the
"feel" of the 2nd century and 3rd century writings. The 3rd century is
clearly much more liturgical, and the accounts of Christians lapsing during persecution are muliplied many times over.)
Lines Are Drawn
One day, Alexander called together the elders of Alexandria to ask
them questions about the Scripture. Arius was sharp-tongued, bold, and
no stranger to controversy; he had already been excommunicated once by a
previous bishop in 311. He told Alexander that if the Son was begotten
by the Father, then the Son had a beginning. Before he was begotten by
the Father, he did not exist.
Alexander told him this was heresy, but Arius refused to back down.
Alexander
had to do something, but it took time. Apparently he was patient (some
say slow) in dealing with Arius. Eventually, though, after consulting
with other bishops, he removed Arius from office and even excommunicated
him [i.e.; banned him from the communion table]. This happened in A.D.
321, four years before the Council of Nicea.
Arianism
Since this is the 21st century, it is very unlikely that you know the context of Arius' argument.
In the Pre-Nicene Church [i.e., before the Council of Nicea] everyone believed that the Son was begotten in eternity past, and that this was the meaning of Proverbs 8:22.
However, Arius claimed the Son did not exist prior to being begotten,
while the early churches believed he had already existed inside the
Father as the Father's Logos [Word,Wisdom, or Reason]. (Tertullian, Against Praxeas 5; Origen, De Principiis I:2:2; etc.)
Thus, Arius was speaking against the accepted tradition of the Church, a big no-no in those days.
Arius was now outside the church, but he was not about to drop the argument.
Fanning the Flames Leading to the Council of Nicea
Having lost his battle with the bishops, Arius took his case to
"sailors, millers, and travelers." A master of poetry, he composed
jingles to be sung in the marketplaces in defense of his doctrine.
Worse, he also convinced Eusebius, the bishop of Nicomedia and a popular church leader, to join his cause.
This
was bad because Arius was wrong. It was the job of early church leaders
to preserve the teaching of the apostles, not to add to it or change it
(Irenaeus, Against Heresies III:2:2, c. A.D. 185). The
universal testimony of Arius' predecessors over the previous two
centuries was that the apostles had taught their churches that the Son
had existed prior to being begotten; he had existed inside the Father as his Logos.
It's
hard for me to imagine how Arius or Eusebius (of Nicomedia) could not
have known this. While I understand that the writings of earlier church
leaders could not be picked up at their local Christian bookstore,
earlier church writings were extensively quoted by 4th-century authors.
We know they were available.
Eusebius the Arian
and
Eusebius the Historian
Don't confuse Eusebius of Nicomedia with the historian Eusebius Pamphilius of Caesarea.
The
former adopted Arianism and was rightly censured by the Council of
Nicea. The latter was in high regard among contemporaries, but he is
occasionally accused of Arianism by later churchmen and historians who
do not understand the Nicene and Ante-Nicene view of the Trinity.
Even if Arius and Eusebius were unaware of earlier tradition at the
beginning, the teaching of the apostles, handed down to the churches,
had to have been explained to them repeatedly before the Council of
Nicea ever happened.
Eusebius of Caesarea wrote his Ecclesiastical History—rife
with quotes—just 2 years after Arius' exile from Alexandria (and 2
years before the Council of Nicea). Surely the opponents of Arius and
Eusebius (of Nicomedia) told them what men like Justin Martyr,
Athenagoras, Tertullian, Origen, and others had taught. Arius and
Eusebius simply ignored it; Arius forever and Eusebius until the truth
was forced upon him at the Council of Nicea.
The Flames Get Out of Control
Between Arius' natural salesmanship and Eusebius' popularity, the Arian message began to spread.
It spread so much that it caught the notice of the emperor, Constantine the Great.
Constantine
was in the process of uniting the Roman empire under his own rule.
There had been as many as four emperors at once during the reigns of
Constantine and his father Constantius.
Now reduced to two
emperors, civil war had ignited in A.D. 320 when co-emperor Licinius
ignored the Edict of Milan and reinstituted the persecution of
Christians. Constantine took that as an opportunity to rid himself of
his rival; however, it would take 4 years to make that happen, and the
battles would not end until September, 324.
The Catholic Church
Catholic actually means "universal." It was a common adjective
applied to the Church/churches in the 4th century. It is a mistake to
assume the word "catholic" was a reference to the Roman Catholic
hierarchy, which did not exist at the time of the Council of Nicea.
The
Council of Nicea made a number of decisions that give us a clear
picture of the authority of Rome at the time. Those decisions are called
"canons." Canon VI reads:
Let
the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the
Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is
customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the
other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges.
The
extent of the jurisdiction of the bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and
Antioch are not exactly given, except for the bishop of Alexandria, but
they were clearly not universal.
There is extensive evidence that there was no "pope" in the Ante-Nicene Church.
Thus, any references at or before the Council of Nicea to the
"catholic" Church or "catholic" churches are simply references to the
Church universal.
It was during this civil war that Arius and Eusebius, in complete
disregard of the commands of Christ and writings of the apostles, sought
to divide the Church.
Constantine recognized the danger of this.
With so many of his subjects converted (so-called) to Christianity,
splitting the Church could easily split the empire!
In A.D. 323,
Constantine summoned bishop Hosius of Cordova (in modern Spain) to help
resolve the dispute. Hosius delivered a letter—purportedly from
Constantine but likely written by Hosius—to both Alexander and Arius
informing them that neither was behaving properly.
Alexander was
told that the questions he asked of Arius were inappropriate. Arius was
told that opinions such as his should be kept to himself.
Neither was moved by the letter.
The Council of Nicea Is Summoned by Constantine
Once Constantine dispatched of Licinius, he was ready to turn more focused attention on his problem in the Church.
Constantine
the Great was no fool. He was a master statesman and diplomat. He did
not simply demand that the bishops of the churches in the empire appear
before him in Constantinople. He called a council in a city easily
accessible to all the bishops of the empire, Nicea in modern-day Turkey.
He also paid their travel expenses and welcomed them with great pomp
and circumstance.
Wooed and comfortable, the bishops gathered at
the Council of Nicea to discuss the dissension that had by now spread
across most of north Africa and the Middle East. Constantine asked if he
could participate, and the bishops granted their host this privilege.
While not a churchman, he was a diplomat, and he would play a major role
in the proceedings.
It was the summer of 325 AD. Over time Jesus would be, by this council, proclaimed to be GOD. Imagine it was only less than 300 years since Jesus walked the earth and these people forgot who God is and had to have a council to define GOD. In ignorance they made Jesus GOD and later on at other councils would come up with a trio of gods because these people were all pagans that took over the name of Christian while the true church was scattered to the four winds. These pagans, because they were devoid of the holy spirit and could not understand the scriptures that speak of the FATHER, son and holy spirit, used their carnal minds to define what they were ignorant of, GOD. Today this trinity lie has spread to almost all false churches. There are only a very very few that know there is only ONE GOD, THE FATHER.
