The Council of Nicene

Written By: James Harrell Jr. 

The Council of Nicene Leading to the Nicene Creed

The church, forced to evaluate the Arian view (Jehovah Witness: Arianism), the first real threat to the views of Jesus’ deity, came to its conclusion at the Council of Nicea in 325. On the basis of considerations such as those we have cited; the Deity of Christ. In fact, the Arianism almost became the official view, replacing Ebionism because of that time period of theological reflection and systematic construction. Anyways, it (Nicea 325), concluded that Jesus is as much and as genuinely God as is the Father. Now it was then decided to create the Creed of Nicene, as an after fact, which was also signed by the vary Eusebius of Nicomedia after his attempt as leading was discredited and put him to shame, had repented. But later the Creed was modified and made longer by Hosius by the signing of the bishops, Eusebius and all that were there. But before that the council condemned Arianism and the document was ripped in front of them, being lead by Eusebius who was provisional excommunicated, a condemnation repeated by later councils being forced to evaluate with the basis of considerations, also causing many of its followers to turn away from following due to the level of disapproval. Everything good and bad must be compared and tested by the Word of God, for our assurance is truly in Him and not in ourselves. 

So, the discussion first was about the genuineness and completeness (is Jesus God or not) of the relationship between the Son to the Father, and the attribution of deity to the Son in a relationship with the Father (is the Son also God or is the Son created by God: ktisma  or poiema), that was settled at the Councils of Nicea (325) and reaffirmed at the Council of Constantinople (381), but not the relationship between the two natures (a divine and a human nature in one person or one nature), which came later. Now there we begin to look at the Council of Ephesus (431), which went as far to dealing with Jesus being two natures (perfect God and perfect human), before his incarnation birth and then becoming one nature after His birth. The Chalcedon (451) had given a definition by question what the “two natures in one person” does not mean. They affirmed the Nicene Creed and also made an official statement regarding the relationship between the two natures, as the answer, but are in fact instead a question. 

Thus, this furthers the attempts to solve the problem of the relationship between the two natures. Now what is on the table is four other terminological terms: Adoptionism, Anhypostatic Christology, Kenoticism, and the doctrine of dynamic incarnation. 

1. Adoptionism thieves on of John 3:16, Psalm 2:7, Hebrew 1:5; 5:5, and Mark 1:11, Jesus later becomes God and not God becoming man, but they overlook Christ pre-existence and other details, such the virgin birth, etc. 

2. Anhypostatic Christology takes away the ideal of the second person of the Godhead trinity and pushes the notion of two natures before the incarnation and then one nature. 

3. Kenoticism (19 Century/modern period) is that God exchanged a part of His divine nature for human characteristics by incarnation. They thieve on Philippians 2:7, Jesus makes himself nothing. He is God, and then he is human, and then God again. This is the Chalcedonian formula, which is to see God as God, to see Jesus as God, but not at the same time, meaning holding both position as God while being Jesus and the opposite. 

4. The Doctrine Dynamic Incarnation suggest that the power of God entered into the man Jesus and thus empowers him as we would say it was not I, but God in me allowed me to do it. It pulls from 2 Corinthians 5:19, Philippians 2:12-13, and Galatians 2:20. God was in Christ and not Christ was God. It overlooks fullness of God dwelling in Jesus bodily: Colossians 2:9. Jesus pre-existence: John 1:18; 8:58.

Looking at Philippians 2: 6-7, God became the very nature of a servant (empting)/become a subordinated to the Father why being incarnated in the flesh and had not lost any of His divinity, but was limited being in the form of a man as Jesus of all knowing, of all presence, of all power and yet still had the power of being all powerful and to be everywhere and all knowing. The human body works by its universal laws and it must grow according to its organs: human organism grows gradually and so God was limited by that way the body functions. Jesus always operated with both divine humanity at the same time, being Himself, which is who He was being incarnated. 

Jesus is in fact the true essence of being human, which we are not true humans because of the sin of Adam. So, we need to look at Jesus and recognize that Jesus was whole as a human being coexisting with God, only Jesus is God. We should be able to coexist with God when we get back what we lost due to Adam’s sinning. So, we will be capable of being greater in what, how, why we do. Like Jesus being limited in the flesh, as would the greatest pitcher if being right-handed is attempting to pitch with his/her left hand. He/Her is still empowered to be the greatest pitcher but is limited by what he/her could do by pitching with his/her opposite hand. Still, Jesus incarnated was the full version human of what God had created us to be before the fall of man. God condescended to lesser taking on humanity, because He is able to do so, but we cannot ascend to be God. God did not make man to ascend to be God. Likewise, it is easier for us to imitate the lower creatures, but they cannot imitate us, even if we can’t take on their nature of smell and sight, etc. God, however, does what He wants and is not limited as we are.        

There are six basically heresies about the person of Christ that showed itself in the first four Christian centuries. (Ebionism) deny the genuineness or (Arianism) deny the completeness of His deity; (Docetism) deny the genuineness or (Apollinarianism) the completeness of Jesus’ humanity; (Nestorianism) divide his person or confuse Jesus’ natures (Eutychianism). 

As we also discussed of the Nicea, Second Council of (787) about worshiping imagery was confirmed by the wife of Constantive V after his death. She convened the council with 300 bishops. She had at first reversed his policy after his death while acting as regent for their son Leo IV, until she murdered him. But it had allowed sound provisions to the angel of the Lord (OT), the incarnate Christ (NT), later the fathers, Mary and the saints that had become established. This was put to standard orthodoxy in Greek and roman churches, but the Reformation rejected the decision saying it encourages idolatry, as with Calvin’s argument with the words to define its distinction between proskynesis (which was to be given to images) or latria (rather more properly through the images to their prototypes, and worship. Also meaning to be given to God alone.), but later in the west as dulia and latria. 

Mistakenly, how the images were to be depicted because of the nudeness paintings of Michaelangelo, which was done over later to cover its nudeness had something to do with the second council. In fact, it was a non-issue having nothing to do with the reason of the second council. It did not come up until when the Council of Trent between the Catholics and Protestantism, was about to be finished. The Trent (political tensions) fueled the 30 Year War.

Sources: 

1. Article: Art, Trent, and Michelangelo’s “Last Judgment” John O’Malley: Jwo9@georgetown.edu

2. Christian Theology Second Edition: Millard J. Erickson

3. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology Second Edition: Walter A. Elwell