Nicene Creed Theological Blunders
The Nicene Creed was a pivotal statement of Christian faith formulated in the 4th century. It originated from the First Council of Nicaea in AD 325, a gathering of Christian bishops convened in the city of Nicaea (now İznik, Turkey) by the Roman Emperor Constantine I (r. 306-337 CE). This council was the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom. It was primarily convened to address the Arian controversy, which questioned the divinity of Jesus Christ.
Arius, a priest from Alexandria, argued that Jesus Christ was not co-eternal or of the same substance as God the Father, suggesting that Jesus was a created being who was subordinate to the Father. For all intents and purposes, subordination was the orthodoxy of that time, but the competing faction wanted to elevate Jesus’ status to be equal to that of God. The Nicene Creed was established to affirm the church’s stance on the divinity of Jesus Christ, stating that He is “begotten, not made, being of one substance (homoousis) with the Father.”
For reference, here is the original creed:
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 (homoousia) with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvaton, 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.
— The Nicene Creed as found on the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops website
HOMOOUSIA & HYPOSTASIS
Homoousia is a Greek term meaning “of the same substance” or “of the same essence.” It became a central concept in the Nicene Creed. The term is not found in scripture and originates from Gnostics and Paganists. Emperor Constantine specifically championed this term to be included in the creed. The irony was that the Council of Antioch in 268 CE explicitly condemned the term in reference to God and Jesus.
The primary function of the Council of Antioch was to address and condemn the teachings of Paul of Samosata, the bishop of Antioch at the time. Paul of Samosata championed an adoptionist theology, suggesting that Jesus was born a mere man and became divine through his actions and virtues later in life.
This caused the Council of Nicea to utilize a term that the church condemned in the past. In addition to the above theological contradiction between the church, another blatant contradiction has been hidden. Today’s Nicean creed does not mention that a portion was deleted. This portion was the anathemas at the end of the creed, which stated the following:
But they who say, ‘there was a time when the Son was not,’ and that ‘he did not exist before he was begotten’; or that say ‘he was begotten out of nothing’; or that say ‘he existed out of any other hypostasis or ousia than the Father’; or was created or liable to imitation or change–the Holy Catholic Church anathematizes”
According to the book “The God of Jesus In Light of Christian Dogma: The Recovery of New Testament Theology,” by Kegan A. Chandler p. 196 states:
At the end of the original version of the Nicene Creed there was affixed a series of anathemas, or damnatory clauses against heretical views. Condemned obviously was Arius’ view of the Son created in time, but curiously there was also a condemnation of anyone “that say that he existed out of any other hypostasis or ousia than the Father.”1 Modern versions of the creed have since deleted this portion, and one can understand why: the purpose of the Nicene Creed, according to the anathema, had been to connect the Father and the Son to the same “ousia” and the same “hypostatis.” This immediatly seems to pose a problem for orthodoxy’s doctrinal continuity narrative, since after the Council of Constantinople (381 CE) it was declared that the Father and the Son are explicitly not the same “hypostatsis.” And the Anathasian Creed (c. 500 CE) would likeway proclaim that “there is one hypostasis of the Father, and another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost” and that if anyone said that there was only one hypostasis, they were to perish everlastingly. Thus, strictly according to the language involved, the Nicene Creed appears to exhibit a “Sabellian” view (that God is one substance and one hypostasis in multiple modes), and contradicts and condemns the Athanasian Creed and vice versa. As one vicar writes:
NICEA OVERTURNED (CONSTANTIUS II)
After Constantine the Great’s death in 337 CE, his sons succeeded him, and the empire was divided among them. Constantius II, who reigned from 337 to 361 AD, was Constantius’s immediate successor as the sole ruler of the entire Roman Empire. Constantius II’s views on the Nicene Creed and the theological controversies of his time significantly differed from his father’s.
Constantius II is known for supporting subordination ideology and the belief that Jesus was subordinate to the Father. Arianism argued that the Son was not co-eternal and consubstantial with the Father, which was a direct contradiction to the Nicene formulation that affirmed the full divinity of the Son, Jesus Christ, as being “of the same substance” (homoousios) with the Father.
During his reign, Constantius II promoted Arian bishops and theology, and he was instrumental in calling several councils that sought to revise or overturn the Nicene Creed’s formulations. His efforts led to the Arian Controversy becoming more entrenched within the Christian Church, contributing to decades of theological conflict and division.
During the reign of Constantius II, several significant church councils were convened, reflecting the ongoing theological disputes within Christianity, particularly concerning Arianism and the Nicene Creed. Here are some of the notable councils that took place:
Council of Antioch (341 AD): This council was one of several meetings held in Antioch during this period. It is notable for producing the “Dedication Creed,” among others, which reflected Arian sympathies by avoiding the term “homoousios” from the Nicene Creed. The council aimed to create a form of Christianity acceptable to both Arians and Nicenes, but it ultimately failed to resolve the dispute.
Council of Sardica (343 AD): Convened to attempt reconciliation between the Arian (East) and Nicene (West) factions, the Council of Sardica ended in division. The Nicene bishops and the Arian bishops held separate meetings and made different decisions, with the Nicene faction reasserting the decisions of the First Council of Nicaea. The council highlighted the deep divisions within Christianity at the time.
Council of Ancyra (358 AD): This council was another attempt to find a middle ground between Arianism and Nicene Christianity. It proposed the use of the term “homoiousios” (of similar substance) rather than “homoousios” (of the same substance) in describing the relationship between the Father and the Son, aiming to appease both sides.
Council of Ariminum (Rimini) and Seleucia (359 AD): These two councils were held simultaneously in the West (Rimini) and the East (Seleucia) with the purpose of resolving the Arian controversy. However, they ended in further conflict and confusion. Constantius II attempted to enforce a compromise doctrine that was essentially Arian in nature, leading to widespread dissatisfaction and division.
Council of Constantinople (360 AD): This council endorsed a form of Arianism and rejected the term “homoousios” completely. It represented an attempt by Constantius II to enforce Arian doctrine across the Empire, further alienating Nicene Christians.
As written in “The God of Jesus In Light of Christian Dogma: The Recovery of New Testament Theology,” by Kegan A. Chandler p. 202 states:
Indeed, in another council in Constantinople in the year 360 CE, the term “homoousios” was once more resoundingly condemned as unscriptural. Of course, this council of Constantinople in 360 is hardly mentioned today. The next council held in the city, in 381, which famously solidified the Trinitarian doctrine, is now usually labeled “The First Council of Constantinople,” perhaps in an effort to cover the existence of the first.
Things did not swing back in favor of the original Nicene Creed and against Arianism until Emperor Theodosius I, Roman emperor of the East (379–392) and then sole emperor of both East and West (392–395). Under Emperor Theodosius I, the Nicene Creed was firmly reestablished as the orthodox statement of Christian belief at the “First” Council of Constantinople in 381 AD.
HOLY SPIRIT
Until this point, the identity of the Holy Spirit was not established. The Council of Nicea only recognized the Holy Spirit but did not include the Holy Spirit in the Godhead. So, the creed was revised at the First Council of Constantinople in 381 to include a more detailed description of the Holy Spirit, leading to the version commonly used in Christian liturgy today. This version is known as the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed and includes the following statement:
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 bapEsm for the remission of sins. I look for the resurrecEon of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
https://christthesavioroca.org/files/2020-Resurrection-Classes/The-Nicene-Creed-of-325.pdf
FINAL THOUGHTS
The Council of Nicea inevitably contradicts its own theology based on an internal critique. Firstly, it utilized the term Homoousis when this term was specifically condemned by the same church in the Council of Antioch in 268 CE. This is best summarized in the following quote:
I cannot help but say it is something odd to have these two Creeds established in the same Church, in one of which those that declared to be accursed who deny the Son to be of “the same ousia or hypostasis of the Father,” and in the other it is declared that “they cannot be saved who do not assert that there is one hypostasis of the Father, and another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost,”2
Then we see that after Constantine, the Church moved away from the term Homoousis and attempted to reconcile the fallout between the Subordationists and the eventual Trinitarians. Finally, it wasn’t until 381 that the role of the Holy Spirit was even finalized in relation to the Trinity. All this proves that the Trinity concept was a later-stage innovation that was not what Jesus or his disciples ever taught but the formulation concocted by men hundreds of years after Jesus’s death.
In fact the Athanasian paradox that one is three, and three but one is so incomprehensible to the human mind that no candid man can say he has any idea of it, and how can he believe what presents no idea. He who thinks he does only decieves himself. He proves also that man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder is the sport of every wind. With such persons gullability which they call faith takes the helm from the hand of reason and the mind becomes a wreck.
Last updated