### Nicene Beliefs Non Latter-day Saint Christians (also known as Nicene Christians) believe the following about God: - **There is only one God** > “We believe in one God...” — Nicene Creed, opening line - **God created everything in existence** > “…the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of all things > visible and invisible.” — Nicene Creed, 381 version - **God is eternal, uncreated, and the source of all life** > “…begotten, not made…” (referring to the Son), and “the Lord and Giver > of Life” (referring to the Holy Spirit) — Nicene Creed - **God is a Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit — three persons, one essence** > Implied throughout the Nicene Creed and formally defined at the 1st Council of Constantinople (381 CE) ### LDS Beliefs On the other hand, these core Nicene beliefs are **not** shared by the Church of Latter-day Saints. Indeed the LDS Church explicitly rejects these tenets: > **There is only one God** Latter-day Saints worship only God the Father through Jesus Christ, but they also believe in the existence of a plurality of Gods. God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are three distinct beings, and this divine plurality extends beyond them — faithful humans can and have also become exalted and become gods themselves: > “I will preach on the plurality of Gods… The heads of the Gods appointed one God for us.” - Joseph Smith, King Follett Discourse --- >> **God created everything in existence** LDS theology holds that God organized the universe from pre-existing, eternal matter, rather than creating ex nihilo (out of nothing). Matter is considered co-eternal with God: > “The elements are eternal...” — Doctrine and Covenants 93:33 --- >> **God is eternal, uncreated, and the source of all life** LDS theology teaches that God is eternal, but not uncreated in the classical Christian sense. According to LDS theology, the LDS God was once a mortal man who progressed to godhood: > “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man... If you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form.” — Joseph Smith, King Follett Discourse --- >> **God is a Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit — three persons, one essence** Latter-day Saints reject the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity. Instead, they believe in a Godhead of three distinct divine beings: God the Father, Jesus Christ (His Son), and the Holy Ghost. These are united in purpose but are not of one substance. > “Latter-day Saints do not believe in the traditional doctrine of the Trinity as developed in the post–New Testament church.” — Gospel Topics: Godhead ### Question With these apparent fundamental differences in mind, do Nicene Christians believe that they worship the same god as Latter-day Saints? Or do they believe that the Nicene/Trinitarian God is ontologically different enough from the LDS God that they cannot be said to be the same being?

Apparently, the terms “Arian,” “Arianism,” and “Arian Controversy” were derived from the name of Arius, who was in charge of one of the churches in Alexandria, and whose dispute with his bishop Alexander began the Arian Controversy. This implies that Arius was a very important person. It implies that Arius’ theology continued during that entire period of the Arian Controversy, namely: > From AD 318, when Arius publicly criticized his bishop Alexander for > teaching ‘erroneous’ doctrines about the nature of Christ, > > Until AD 380, when the emperor outlawed all 'Arian denominations’ > through the Edict of Thessalonica . However, recent scholars on the Arian Controversy claim that Arius was neither the leader of ‘Arianism’ nor regarded by the 'Arians' as a significant theologian. For example: > “Arius … was never unequivocally a hero for the parties associated > with his name” (RW, 82). And, again, “Arius … was not an obvious hero > for the enemies of Nicaea.” (RW, 166) > > “It was not just ecclesiastical protocol which made the bishops at > Antioch in 341 declare … that they were not 'followers of Arius … They > meant exactly what they went on to say, that they had accepted Arius > as orthodox, but did not look on him as a factional leader, or ascribe > any individual authority to him.” (RW, 82) > > “Those who suspected or openly repudiated the decisions of Nicaea … > certainly (did not have) a loyalty to the teaching of Arius as an > individual theologian” (RW, 233). > > “The people of his day, whether they agreed with him or not, did not > regard him (Arius) as a particularly significant writer” (RH, xvii). > > “Arius’ own theology is of little importance in understanding the > major debates of the rest of the century.” (LA, 56-57) > > “Those who follow his theological tradition seldom or never quote > him.” (RH, xvii) And, again, “the heirs of his theological tradition > hardly ever quote him.” (RH, 6) > > “Arius evidently made converts to his views … but he left no school of > disciples.” (RW, 233) > > “Arius’ role in ‘Arianism’ was not that of the founder of a sect. It > was not his individual teaching that dominated the mid-century eastern > Church.” (RW, 165) > > “Arius was not accepted as leader of a new movement.” (RH, xvii-xviii) > > “Arius was only the spark that started the explosion. He himself was > of no great significance.” (RH, xvii-xviii) Authors ------- > RH = Bishop RPC Hanson The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God - > The Arian Controversy 318-381, 1987 > > RW = Archbishop Rowan Williams Arius: Heresy and Tradition, 2002/1987 > > LA = Lewis Ayres Nicaea and its legacy, 2004 Ayres is a Professor of > Catholic and Historical Theology So, if Arius was of no great significance in the fourth-century controversy, why is it called the ‘Arian’ Controversy?

In summary, 2nd century Logos-theology taught that God's Logos was always part of God but later became a distinct Person. In 4th-century Nicene theology, the Son is the Father's only Mind. In Arian theology, the Father and Son are two distinct Minds. Did the Nicenes or the Arians follow the Logos-theologians in this regard? To explain in more detail: When the Church became Gentile dominated in the second century, the Apologists explained Jesus Christ as the Logos of Greek philosophy. In this philosophy, the Logos always existed as part of God but became a hypostasis (a distinct Person or Existence) when God decided to create. Through the Logos, the high God created and communicated with the creation: > “Ever since the work of Justin Martyr, Christian theologians had > tended to use the identification of the pre-existent Son with some > similar concept in contemporary Middle Platonism as a convenient > philosophical device” (Hanson, p 22-23). > > “They used to great effect several features of contemporary Greek > philosophy to enable them to construct their doctrines of God. They > identified the pre-existent Christ, thought of as manifesting himself > on critical occasions throughout the history of the Jewish people, > with the nous or **Second Hypostasis** of contemporary Middle > Platonist philosophy, and also borrowed some traits from the divine > Logos of Stoicism (including its name).” (Hanson Lecture ) > > "Greek-speaking theologians of the early fourth century had three > words for something that really exists, and exists in itself, as > distinguished from an accident or a quality. The words are ousia, > hypostasis, and hyparxis. ... As the fourth century progressed, > hypostasis became, more and more, the one term that was the center of > controversy." (Lienhard ) Logos-theology remained the dominant teaching right into the fourth century: > "The theological structure provided by the Apologists lasted as the > main, widely-accepted, one might almost say traditional framework for > a Christian doctrine of God well into the fourth century, and was, in > differing form, the basic picture of God with which the great majority > of those who were first involved in the Arian Controversy were > familiar and which they accepted" (Hanson ). Almost all delegates to Nicaea in 325 were from the East and the East maintained Logos-theology: > “Around 250–300 attended, drawn almost entirely from the eastern half > of the empire” (Ayres, p. 19). > > "The great majority of the Eastern clergy (at Nicaea) were ultimately > disciples of Origen. … they were simply concerned with maintaining the > traditional Logos-theology of the Greek-speaking Church" (Frend, > W.H.C. The Rise of Christianity. See also, Bible.ca). Alexander and Athanasius taught that the Son is the Father's only Logos or Wisdom. In other words, only one Logos existed: > “In Alexander, and in Athanasius … Christ is the one power and wisdom > of the Father” (Ayres, p. 54). > > Alexander stated that if, as Arius claims, there once was when the Son > was not, then “there was once when God was without wisdom, power, > brightness, and so on” (Anatolios, p. 87). > > Athanasius argued similarly that the Son is “present with Him (the > Father) as his Wisdom and his Word” (Ayres, p. 46). > > Athanasius wrote: “There is no need to postulate two Logoi” (Hanson, > p. 431), meaning two minds. > > “He (Athanasius) is appalled at the Arian statement that the Son > exercises his own judgment of free-will” (Hanson, p. 428). Origen, Arius, and the 'Arians' taught two Logoi. In other words, the Father has His own mind apart from the Son: > Origen argued that “Father and Son are two … in subsistence > (hupostasis), but are one in likemindedness, harmony … and … will” > (Williams, p. 132), implying two distinct minds. > > “Arius also talks of two wisdoms and powers, speaking of a Logos that > was not distinct from the Father's hypostasis, after whom the Son is > designated Word” (Ayres, p. 55). “God's own power and wisdom is the > source of Christ.” “The proper power of God Himself … is natural to > him and coexistent with him unoriginatedly” (Ayres, pp. 53-54, quoting > Asterius, a prominent early Arian). > > Asterius, a prominent early Arian, wrote: “There are … two Wisdoms, > one God's own who has existed eternally with God, the other the Son > who was brought into existence. … There is another Word in God besides > the Son” (Hanson, p. 13). My question is, therefore, did the Nicenes or the Arians follow second-century Logos-theology? The Nicenes taught one mind and the Arians two. Did Logos-theology teach one or two minds (Logoi)? I put a similar question to Bryan Litfin, a theologian who wrote in Logos-theology. He said: > The general idea of the Logos Theology is that there is only one > mind, which belongs to God. ... In his one, single mind, there is an > eternal existence which goes by several names. In particular, it can > be called Word, or Wisdom. What happens in Christian theology, due to > the 2nd century Logos Theologians, influenced by Stoicism and by > John's Prologue, is that the abstract Word/Wisdom of God comes to be > "hypostasized" as a separate Person, the Second Person of the Trinity. > He only becomes a Son when God decides to create the cosmos. Then > later, he becomes incarnate for salvation (at the virginal > conception). So the Word/Wisdom is eternal, residing in the eternal > mind of God. But Sonship is temporal, and so is Incarnation. If I understand this correctly, it seems to say that in Logos-theology, there is only one mind in God, which means that the Nicenes followed Logos-theology in this regard, while the Arians deviated from Logos-theology. Further insight will be appreciated.

Following are some excerpts from the Nicene Creed: > I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father... > >I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. > >(*Source*: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) Here, the Creed speaks of God the Son as consubstantial with the Father. But when it comes to describing the Holy Spirit, it does not use the attribute 'consubstantial'. What is the explanation for the same? Inputs are welcome from any denomination that has adopted the Nicene Creed.

The Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Germany celebrates the anniversary (325-2025) with a new Icon of the Council of Nicaea (see below). Here's the Festival hymn (from [the program](https://www.oekumene-ack.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Theologische_Reflexion/Nizaea2025/Materialien/Die_Pilgerreise_der_Niz%C3%A4a-Ikone_2025.pdf)) : German: >„Wir feiern freudig das Jubiläum des Konzils,
und nun kommt in Deutschland eine neue ehrwürdige Ikone zu uns;
die Väter haben uns das Symbolum des Glaubens geschenkt und darin bekannt,
dass Christus, der Sohn Gottes, Licht vom Licht und Eines Wesens ist; Ihr preisen wir“
-*Festlied der Nizäa-Ikone* English Translation: >„We joyfully celebrate the anniversary of the Council,
and now a new venerable icon comes to us in Germany;
the Fathers have given us the Symbol of Faith and in it professed that Christ,
the Son of God, is Light from Light and of one substance; You we praise.“
-*Festival hymn of the Nicaea Icon* **Is the Catholic church doing anything special or similar for this 1700th year anniversary?**

Lately I've been trying to figure out whether or not Constantine is a Nicene Christian. He was baptised by Eusebius who was of course an Arian. And since he was very close to Eusebius, he was influenced by Arian views (exiling Saint Athanasius). Some sources I have looked at say that he favored Arianism instead of the Orthodox christian view. Others say that he also exiled Eusebius because he continued to teach Arianism. Was Constantine an Orthodox/Nicene Christian believing Christ was in fact God?

The word homoousios is not in the Bible. It also was not a standard part of the Christian confession immediately before Nicaea. Rowan Williams described it as “the radical words of Nicaea” (RW, 236) and “conceptual innovation” (RW, 234-5). The Arians objected that these words are both “unscriptural” and “untraditional” (RW, 234-5). In contrast to these “radical words,” Williams refers to “the lost innocence of pre-Nicene trinitarian language” (RW, 234-5). [Rowan Williams - Arius, Heresy & Tradition, 2001] In the third century, the word homoousios was associated with Sabellian Monarchianism which taught that God is one person as well as one being. The word was used by some Libyan bishops to say that Christ and the Father are one and the same God, by Sabellius to abolish the distinction of the three hypostases, and by Paul of Samosata to describe Father and Son as a primitive undifferentiated unity. This was one of the reasons why the Arians did not like the word. But the anti-Arians did not like the word either: > 1. Eusebius of Caesarea unambiguously stated that it was Constantine, and nobody else, not even the anti-Arians, who wanted the word > homoousios. > > 2. After Nicaea, the word falls completely out of the controversy very shortly after the Council of Nicaea and is not heard of for over > twenty years (See - Homoousios ). > > 3. At the Council of the Western Bishops at Sardica in the year 343, where they rephrased the Nicene Creed, the pro-Nicene theologians > omitted the word. > > 4. At the end of his life Ossius gave his unconditional consent to the so-called "blasphemy" of Sirmium (AD 357), which states that neither > homoousios nor homoiousios are Biblical. > > 5. Eustathius, archbishop of Antioch in the 4th century, whose anti-Arian polemic made him unpopular among his fellow bishops in the > East, openly expressed his dissatisfaction with the formula approved > at Nicaea. So, if the word homoousios is not found in the Holy Scriptures or in the orthodox Christian confession before Nicaea, why was it included in the Nicene Creed?

Why were ousia and hypostasis synonymous in the Nicene Creed? ---- In the original 325 A.D. Nicene Creed, an anathema is included which has ousia and hypostasis as synonymous. In this case, the Trinity is one hypostasis ( = homoousios). >And in the Holy Spirit. 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*** (ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσιάς) or created, or is subject to alteration or change these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes. Source: https://earlychurchtexts.com/public/creed_of_nicaea_325.htm It seems also the meaning of υποστασις in Hebrews 1:3. >He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his ***nature*** (υποστασις) (ESV). The ASV has "substance". However, in later centuries hypostasis began referring to the "person", not the "nature" or "being" of the Trinity. **Why did such change in definition occur?** It would be helpful to address the semantical development of υποστασις on how it changed from "substance" (nature/essence) to "person". >The Church confesses is that God is three Persons (hypostasis) in one Essence (ousia). Source: https://www.google.com.ph/amp/s/exploringthedepthsofthedivine.wordpress.com/2015/08/12/god-as-trinity-orthodox-trinitarianism/amp/

The Nicene and Dedication Councils were attended by more or less the same people and were only 16 years apart (325 vs 341) but resulted in opposing creeds. The Nicene Creed is pro-Sabellian but the Dedication Creed is anti-Sabellian. What made the difference? More or less the same people ---------------------------- The Dedication Council was a Council of the Eastern Church and the Nicene Council was almost exclusively Eastern: > At Nicaea, the delegates were “drawn almost entirely from the eastern > half of the empire” (LA, 19). > > “Very few Western bishops took the trouble to attend the Council (of > Nicaea). The Eastern Church was always the pioneer and leader in > theological movements in the early Church. It is well known that > Hilary, for instance, never really understood the Arian Controversy > till he reached the East as a result of being exiled. The Westerners > at the Council represented a tiny minority.” (RH, 170) > > The Nicene Council “was overwhelmingly Eastern, and only represented > the Western Church in a meagre way.” (RH, 156) The Nicene Creed is pro-Sabellian. ---------------------------------- > “If we are to take the creed N at its face value, the theology of > Eustathius and Marcellus was the theology which triumphed at Nicaea. > That creed admits the possibility of only one ousia and one > hypostasis. This was the hallmark of the theology of these two men.” > (RH, 235) [Eustathius and Marcellus were the two main Sabellians > who attended in Nicene Council.] > > “The Creed of Nicaea of 325 … ultimately confounded the confusion > because its use of the words ousia and hypostasis was so ambiguous as > to suggest that the Fathers of Nicaea had fallen into Sabellianism, a > view recognized as a heresy even at that period.” (Hanson’s Lecture ) > > “In the controversies which erupted over Eustathius of Antioch and > Marcellus after Nicaea, both thought their theologies faithful to > Nicaea—and they had good grounds for so assuming. Both were > influential at the council, and Nicaea’s lapidary formulations were > never intended to rule out their theological idiosyncrasies.” (LA, 99) > > After Nicaea, the Creed was associated “with the theology of Marcellus > of Ancyra. … The language of that creed seemed to offer no > prophylactic (prevention) against Marcellan doctrine, and increasingly > came to be seen as implying such doctrine.” (LA, 96, 97) > > “To many the creed seemed strongly to favour the unitarian tendency > among these existing trajectories.” (LA, 431) [Ayres uses the term > “unitarian” to refer to Sabellianism. For example: “A great deal of > controversy was caused in the years after the council by some > supporters of Nicaea whose theology had strongly unitarian tendencies. > Chief among these was Marcellus of Ancyra.” (LA, 431)) > > “Simonetti estimates the Nicene Council as a temporary alliance for > the defeat of Arianism between the tradition of Alexandria led by > Alexander and ‘Asiatic’ circles (i.e. Eustathius, Marcellus) whose > thought was at the opposite pole to that of Arius. … Alexander … > accepted virtual Sabellianism in order to ensure the defeat of > Arianism. … The ‘Asiatics’ … were able to include in N a hint of > opposition to the three hypostases theory.” (RH, 171) > > It is not “an openly Sabellian creed.” “It is going too far to say > that N is a clearly Sabellian document. … It is exceeding the evidence > to represent the Council as a total victory for the anti-Origenist > opponents of the doctrine of three hypostases. It was more like a > drawn battle.” (RH, 172) Ayres says that his conclusions are close to > Hanson’s in this regard (LA, 92). > > The Dedication Creed of 431 “represents the nearest approach we can > make to discovering the views of the ordinary educated Eastern bishop > who was no admirer of the extreme views of Arius but who had been > shocked and disturbed by **the apparent Sabellianism of Nicaea**.” (RH, > 290) The Dedication Creed is anti-Seballian. --------------------------------------- While Sabellianism asserts only one single hypostasis, meaning one single rational capacity or mind, the Dedication Creed explicitly asserts that the trinity is “three in hypostasis but one in agreement (συμφωνία)” (LA, 118). “One in agreement” indicates the existence of three distinct ‘Minds’. > The Dedication Creed’s “chief bête noire [the thing that it > particularly dislikes] is Sabellianism, the denial of a distinction > between the three within the Godhead.” (RH, 287) > > The Dedication creed is “strongly anti-Sabellian.” (RH, 287) > > “The creed has a clear anti-Sabellian and anti-Marcellan thrust.” (LA, > 119) LA = Ayres, Lewis, Nicaea and its Legacy, An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology, 2004 RH = Hanson RPC, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381. 1988

The council of Nicea was held in A.D. 325 a few hundred years after the early church. Yet it contained church leaders from all over, and it reached a wide consensus on a number of issues. Some of these decisions seem contradictory with Protestantism, specifically the seeming appeal to bishops and the church community as a final authority. For example, the council refers to itself several times as "the great and holy Synod," implying that these decisions are binding to some extent, not just suggestions. It refers to penance, which Protestants typically don't practice. It also heavily implies that church custom ought to be followed: > It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great Synod that, in some > districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the > presbyters, whereas **neither canon nor custom permits** that they who > have no right to offer should give the Body of Christ to them that do > offer. And this also has been made known, that certain deacons now > touch the Eucharist even before the bishops. They also state: > It is by all means proper that a bishop should be appointed by all the > bishops in the province which seems to appeal to church consensus in a way that seems to contradict Protestant beliefs. Together, the most clear implication seems to be that believers everywhere are bound to follow the teachings given by ecumenical councils or decisions made by a consensus of bishops. I suppose Protestants could argue that humans are capable of error and that these teachings were a modern invention, not something believed by the early church. But if that were the case, then why would bishops from *all* across the continent be able to agree on these declarations? I'm open to arguments that large swaths of the church had fallen into error by AD 325, or that this contradicts things agreed on in the early church. But I'm not sure how to make that argument. On the one hand, there's a lot here that we don't see said by Ignatius or early writers. On the other hand, I don't see Ignatius *contradicting* what's written here, and a consensus by successors of the apostles could indicate that the apostles themselves did believe these things and passed them on as tradition. Ignatius also writes : > Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop...It is not lawful > without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast That doesn't directly imply everything said at Nicea, but the similarity in what's said at Nicea and by Ignatius seems to strengthen the case that Nicea was based on tradition passed down from the apostles. Why would the tradition change so much and so broadly?

What was the core issue in the Arian Controversy? ================================================= Whether the Son was God? ------------------------ It is often stated that it was about whether Jesus is God. But Lewis Ayres says that is not true. The so-called Arians also referred to Jesus as God and placed Him on the God side of the God-creation barrier. For example: > The creed of 357, which some regard as the high point of Arianism, > describes the Son as “God from God.” (Hanson, p. 345) > > “It is misleading to assume that these controversies were about ‘the > divinity of Christ’” (Ayres, p. 14) > > “A second approach that we need to reject treats the fourth-century > debates as focusing on the question of whether to place the Son on > either side of a clear God/creation boundary.” (Ayres, p. 4) Whether the Son was a lesser Being? ----------------------------------- One may counter and say, yes, the 'Arians' described Him as God but they also described Him as subordinate to the Father. That statement would be misleading because, as RPC Hanson stated, the pro-Nicenes also thought of the Son as subordinate. Ayres says that even Athanasius regarded the Son as subordinate to the Father. For example, he regarded the Son as part of the Father and would never say that the Father is homoousios with the Son. The first theologian to insist on full equality was Basil of Caesarea. For example: > Before Nicaea, all church fathers described the Son as subordinate, > e.g.,: The “conventional Trinitarian doctrine with which Christianity > entered the fourth century ... was to make the Son into a demi-god … a > second, created god lower than the High God” (Hanson Lecture). > > “With the exception of Athanasius virtually every theologian, East and > West, accepted some form of subordinationism at least up to the year > 355; subordinationism might indeed, until the denouement (end) of the > controversy, have been described as accepted orthodoxy.” (Hanson, p. > xix) > > Athanasius also described the Son as subordinate. He always described > the Son “as proper to the Father, as the Father's own wisdom,” meaning > that the Son is part of the Father, never the other way round. (Ayres, > p. 206)  > > Basil of Caesarea was the first to proclaim full equality: “In all the > previous discussions (before Basil of Caesarea) of the term > (homoousios) … a certain ontological subordination is at least > implied.” (Ayres, p. 206) “In Basil, the Father's sharing of his being > involves the generation of one identical in substance and power.” > (Ayres, p. 207) So, whether the Son was subordinate to the Father was also not the real main issue in the Arian Controversy. Was the Controversy about Arius? -------------------------------- The title 'Arian' Controversy implies that Arius caused it and that it was about Arius' teachings. However, Hanson and Lewis confirm that Arius was not the 'cause' but that it was the continuation of the controversy that raged during the previous century: > "He was the spark that started the explosion, but in himself he was of > no great significance.” (Hanson, p. xvii-xviii) > > “This controversy is a complex affair in which tensions between > pre-existing theological traditions intensified as a result of dispute > over Arius.” (Ayres, p. 11-12) Furthermore, the Controversy was not about Arius' teachings. He left no school of followers. After Nicaea, he was no longer mentioned. Nobody thought his writings were worth preserving. As Hanson, Ayres, and Williams confirm, it is called the 'Arian' Controversy only because Athanasius falsely accused his opponents, the anti-Nicenes, of being followers of Arius, which they were not. For example: > “The people of his (Arius’) day, whether they agreed with him or not, > did not regard him as a particularly significant writer. … Neither his > supporters nor his opponents thought them (his writings) worth > preserving. … He virtually disappears from the controversy at an early > stage in its course.” (Hanson, p. xvii) > > “It is virtually impossible to identify a school of thought dependent > on Arius' specific theology." (Ayres, p. 2) > > “The expression 'the Arian Controversy' is a serious misnomer.” > (Hanson, p. xvii) > > “’Arianism’ as a coherent system, founded by a single great figure and > sustained by his disciples, is a fantasy … based on the polemic of > Nicene writers, above all Athanasius.” (Williams, p. 82) > > “The textbook picture of an Arian system … inspired by the teachings > of the Alexandrian presbyter, is the invention of Athanasius’ > polemic.” (Williams, p. 234) So, what was the real core of the Arian Controversy? Was there a golden thread that ran through the controversy in the third and fourth centuries? Authors Quoted -------------- Following the last full-scale book on the Arian Controversy, published in English by Gwatkin at the beginning of the 20th century, R.P.C. Hanson in 1988 published perhaps the most influential book in modern history on the Arian Controversy. (Hanson RPC, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381. 1988) This was followed in 2004 by a book by Lewis Ayres.(Ayres, Lewis, Nicaea and its Legacy, An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology, 2004) Ayres confirmed the importance of Hanson's book. > “Richard Hanson’s The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God (1988) > and Manlio Simonetti’s La Crisi Ariana nel IV secolo (1975) remain > essential points of reference.” (Ayres, p. 12) Ayres’ book is based on those surveys and “in some measure advances on their texts.” (Ayres, p. 5) I also quote from another important book by Rowan Williams, focusing specifically on Arius.(Williams, Rowan (24 January 2002) . Arius: Heresy and Tradition (Revised ed.). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 978-0-8028-4969-4.)

This question is based on [chapter 23](https://archive.org/details/searchforchristi0000hans/page/790/mode/2up?view=theater) of the 1988 book by R.P.C. Hanson - *The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381*. "RH" in the quotes below refers to this book. He describes the conditions leading up to the Council of Constantinople in 381 in that chapter. Theodosius' Edicts ------------------ In the year before that council, emperor Theodosius made the Trinity doctrine the state religion of the Roman Empire and outlawed all other forms of Christianity. His edicts describe the theology of the Roman Empire as follows: > “In February 380 … His subjects were ordered to believe 'the single > divinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit within (sub) an equal majesty > and an orthodox (pia) Trinity'. Heretics would be punished.” (RH, 804) > > “On January 10th (381 - still before the council meeting) Theodosius issued an edict ... The correct Nicene faith was described … as: 'He who professes the > Nicene faith … who confesses God Almighty and Christ his Son in one > Name … who does not blaspheme the Holy Spirit … by denying him … the > undivided substance … of the pure Trinity” (RH, 805) My question is, which theologian advised Theodosius? Clearly, it was a Pro-Nicene theologian but Hanson describes two factions in the pro-Nicene camp in the period leading up to Theodosius’ edicts. The question is, which of those two factions advised Theodosius? The Two Factions ---------------- “Determined, but sadly ineffectual efforts were made by Basil of Caesarea to bring about reconciliation and consensus in the East and between the East and the West between the years 371 and 377.” (RH, 797) However, that was not limited to disagreements between Pro-Nicene and Anti-Nicenes. Hanson's focus is specifically on two factions within the Pro-Nicene camp. He spends a few pages on what he calls an “apparently fruitless interchange between these two eminent men (Damasus and Basil)." (RH, 800) Both of them were pro-Nicene. The leaders of the one faction were mainly Damasus, bishop of Rome, and Athanasius. On the other side was mainly Basil, bishop of Caesarea. For example: > Hanson refers to an “apparently fruitless interchange between these > two eminent men (Damasus and Basil).” (RH, 800) Hanson says that the dispute was partly due to personalities: > “We have already had occasion to remark upon at once the resemblance > and the incompatibility of their temperaments.” Basil described > Damasus as “a haughty man.” (RH, 800) “Simonetti says of Damasus, > 'authoritarian and superficial.” (RH, 800) But I will show below that the main reason for this split within the Pro-Nicene camp was that Damasus and Athanasius were one hypostasis (One Reality or Person) theologians while Basil believed in three hypostases (three Realities or Persons). Evidence of Conflict -------------------- The following confirms that Damasus and Basil opposed one another: > Damasus stated “that Basil's letters addressed to the West were > returned as unacceptable.” (RH, 798) > > “A confession of faith (was sent) from Damasus which Basil was to sign > without altering a single word.” “Basil replied to this demand in a > polite but biting letter.” (RH, 798) Basil and Athanasius also opposed one another: > “Basil writes letters to Athanasius asking him to approach Damasus and > assist Basil's overtures. None of them was answered and nothing came > of them.” (RH, 797) Three Hypostases ---------------- The following shows that, while Damasus was a one hypostasis theologian, Basil and his friend Meletius believed in three hypostases: > In a letter to Basil, “Damasus sent a very cool reply … conveying a > considerable theological statement on the ousia and the personae which > deliberately avoided making any statement about **the three hypostases**. > It was the adhesion of Basil, Meletius and their followers to this > doctrine of the hypostases which caused Damasus … to suspect them of > heresy.” (RH, 798) The Bishop of Antioch ===================== The two factions disagreed about who the rightful bishop of Antioch was. This also reveals that the dispute was primarily about the number of hypostases in the Godhead. Damasus and Athanasius supported Paulinus because he was a 'one hypostasis' theologian, while Basil opposed Paulinus for that same reason. Damasus’ support for Paulinus: ------------------------------ > In 375, Damasus wrote a letter which “constituted also an official > recognition of Paulinus, not Meletius, as bishop of Antioch.” (RH, > 799) > > Paulinus was “Marcellan/Sabellian.” (RH, 799) He derived “his > tradition in continuity from Eustathius who had been bishop about > forty years before” (RH, 800-1). > > "The fragments of Eustathius that survive present a doctrine that is > close to Marcellus, and to Alexander and Athanasius. Eustathius > insists **there is only one hypostasis**.“ (LA, 69) Athanasius’ support for Paulinus: --------------------------------- Basil and Athanasius also disputed over who the rightful bishop of Antioch was; Meletius or Paulinus: > “Basil would not desert Meletius and Athanasius would not recognize > him (Meletius) as bishop of Antioch.” (RH, 797) > > Paulinus “was recognized as legitimate bishop of Antioch by > Athanasius. Later, Athanasius' successor Peter extended the same > recognition to him and persuaded Damasus to do the same.” (RH, 801) Damasus was a generation younger than Athanasius but note the link in the previous quote between them through Athanasius' successor Peter. This is confirmed by the following quote: > “In May 373 Athanasius died, Peter his successor was driven out, fled > to Rome, and proceeded to poison the mind of Damasus against Basil and > Meletius.” (RH, 798) Basil opposed Paulinus ---------------------- But Basil opposed Paulinus because Paulinus taught only one hypostasis: > “Paulinus was a rival of Basil's friend and ally Meletius. … Basil > suspected that Paulinus was at heart a Sabellian, believing in only > one Person (hypostasis) in the Godhead. Paulinus' association with the > remaining followers of Marcellus and his continuing to favour the > expression 'one hypostasis' … rendered him suspect.” (RH, 801) This quote also confirms that Basil believed in three hypostases. See also my question: [Did the Cappadocians teach one or two substances?] Support for Marcellans ====================== The theologies of Damasus, Athanasius, and Basil are also reflected in their support or opposition to the Marcellans. The ”watch-word” of “these disciples of Marcelius … had always been 'only one hypostasis in the Godhead'.” (RH, 802) Since they believed in only one hypostasis, Damasus and Athanasius supported the Marcellans: > Basil wrote a letter which “contained some shafts directed at Damasus > because of his toleration of Eustathius and the Marcellans.” (RH, 799) > > “Basil was never sure in his own mind that Athanasius had abandoned > Marcellus of Ancyra and his followers.” (RH, 797) > > “In a letter written to Athanasius he (Basil of Caesarea) complains > that the Westerners have never brought any accusation against > Marcellus.” (RH, 802) > > “About the year 371 adherents of Marcellus approached Athanasius, > presenting to him a statement of faith. … He accepted it and gave them > a document expressing his agreement with their doctrine.” (RH, 801) The Question ------------ So, given these two factions within the Pro-Nicene camp; one supporting three hypostases (Basil and Meletius) and one supporting only one hypostasis (Athanasius and Damasus), on which of these two factions did Theodosius rely for his theology? Given Theodosius' description of the Trinity doctrine in the imperial edicts, was Theodosius' theology similar to Damasus' one hypostasis theology or Basil's three hypostasis theology?

In response to my question why Theodosius was successful in bringing the Arian Controversy to a close , @Anne gave me references to some articles. I have read one by Steven Wedgeworth . It is a very interesting article (for people with such morbid interests). It discusses the large number of creeds that were formulated in the decades after the Nicene Creed was accepted in 325, culminating in the Homoean creed that was accepted, under the ‘guidance” of Emperor Constantius, at the Council of Constantinople in AD 360. > (The Homoeans or Homoians were the people that maintained that the > Bible does not reveal anything about the substance (ousia) of God and, > therefore, to speculate about His substance is arrogance. This is in > contrast to the Nicene Creed that claimed that the Son is of the same > substance as the Father.) The creed of the Council of Constantinople in AD 360 became the official creed of the Christian Church. All use of ousia was forbidden and it seemed as if Arianism has triumphed. I am also currently reading RPC Hanson on the Arian Controversy. Some regard him as our greatest authority on that controversy (e.g., Hart ). Hanson and Wedgeworth present the same interesting historical facts, such as: - The decisive influence which the emperors had on the decisions of the church councils, - That Athanasius was guilty of violence , - That the Arian Controversy, to an extent, was a dispute between the East and the West, and - That, in 358, the anti-Nicene party split between the Homoiousians (similar substance) and the Homoeans (those who refused to talk about substance). But there is one contextual matter where Hanson and Wedgeworth seem to disagree: While Hanson claimed that no 'orthodoxy' existed when the controversy began and that orthodoxy was only created through that controversy, Wedgeworth speaks of Orthodoxy as something that already existed when the Arian Controversy began. To illustrate the difference in more detail: Steven Wedgeworth ----------------- Wedgeworth refers to “the **orthodoxy** of Athanasius,” “the **orthodox** bishops” in the year 360, and the “early church historians” who defended “the **orthodoxy**” at the Western council at Arminium in 360. He describes the Homoean synod of Constantinople in 360 as “the defeat of **Orthodoxy**.” Wedgeworth also refers to “supposed **orthodox** arguments (that) could perhaps be made against using “substance” language in regards to the godhead.” In this regard, he mentions Origen who have already rejected the term years before, and Paul of Samatosota who had been condemned for his use of homoousios, which the Church condemned as a Sabellian theology. > (Sabellianism is the teaching that the Father, Son, and Holy > Spirit are three faces of one single Person. For a discussion, see my > question on the difference between Modalism and the traditional > understanding of the Trinity doctrine .) In opposition to the orthodox writers and bishops, Wedgeworth referred to the “heretics.“ He said, for example, that “the heretics typically took pre-existing Christian or Jewish tradition, combined it with certain philosophical rhetoric.” RPC Hanson ---------- Hanson, in contrast to Wedgeworth, wrote (link ): > “At the beginning of the controversy nobody knew the right answer. > **There was no 'orthodoxy'** on the subject of 'how divine is Jesus Christ?', certainly not in the form which was later to be enshrined in > the Creed of Constantinople.” Hanson adds that the controversy raged for no less than sixty years. It is highly unlikely that a controversy will last that long if the orthodox form was perfectly well known when it began. Subordinationism ---------------- There is a third option, namely that, when the controversy began, there was a general agreement in the church that the Son is subordinate to the Father. Hanson explains the build-up to the Arian Controversy as follows: During the first three centuries, Greek philosophy was still a strong force in the Roman Empire. In that philosophy, God is immutable and is only able to communicate with our world of change and decay through an intermediary. For that reason, Middle Platonist philosophy postulated a nous or Second Hypostasis as an intermediary between the high God and the physical world. (link ) During those centuries, Christians were still being persecuted by the Roman Empire. The Apologists (the pre-Nicene fathers) defended Christianity before the Gentile peoples of the Roman Empire. For this purpose, they found it effective to identify “the pre-existent Christ … with the nous or Second Hypostasis.” (link ) Since the nous of Greek philosophy was “a second, created god lower than the High God,” (link ) the pre-Nicene fathers described Christ as “a subordinate though essential divine agent.” (link ) Therefore, as Hanson explains, going into the controversy, the orthodoxy was that Christ is subordinate to the Father: > The “**conventional Trinitarian doctrine** with which Christianity > entered the fourth century … was to make the Son into a demi-god.” > (link ) The pre-Nicene fathers did regard Christ as divine, but as Hanson noted: > “The word theos or deus, for the first four centuries of the existence > of Christianity had a wide variety of meanings. There were many > different types and grades of deity in popular thought and religion > and even in philosophical thought.” (link ) > > In the thinking of the pre-Nicene fathers, “of course Christ was > divine,” but since they assumed that many levels of divinity exist, > the question that started the Arian Controversy was: “How divine, and > what exactly did 'divine' mean in that context?” (link ) > > (Theos is the Greek word that is translated as "god" or "God," > depending on the context. Deus is its Latin equivalent.) In conclusion, although Hanson says that, at the beginning of the controversy, there was no 'orthodoxy' on the subject of 'how divine Jesus is, he does use phrases such as "traditional framework for a Christian doctrine of God" and "conventional Trinitarian doctrine with which Christianity entered the fourth century." In other words, there was no agreement on how divine Christ is, but there was agreement that He is not as divine as the Father. The Question ------------ So, my question is: What was the 'orthodox' view of God and Christ when the Arian Controversy began?: 1. The Trinity doctrine as per Wedgeworth; 2. None, as per Hanson, or 3. Subordinationism? Or am I making a category error? Why would Hanson state that the pre-Nicene fathers believed that Christ is subordinate to the Father but still say there was no 'orthodoxy' on the subject of 'how divine is Jesus Christ?' And why would Wedgeworth talk about 'orthodoxy' as if it is the present-day Trinity doctrine, already existing in 360 AD? Did he use the term 'orthodoxy' proleptically (the representation of a thing as existing before it actually does)?

I'm curious about how this was understood by the early church. Initially when I read it in English it seemed to allude to Hebrews 2:5 but then when I looked at it in Greek, "ζωὴν τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος" seems to allude more to passages like Luke 18:30. Trying to research this portion of the creed proves difficult because most of what's written focuses on the christological statements of it. Hebrews 2:5 KJV > For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak. Luke 18:30 KJV > Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting. The English renders both phrases as "world to come" but Luke uses "age" and Hebrews uses "world/inhabited earth" in Greek. I'm looking for early writings on how this was understood.

“’Subordinationism’, it is true was pre-Nicene orthodoxy” [Henry Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers p. 239.]. RPC Hanson (The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, p. xix.) even wrote: > “With the exception of Athanasius virtually every theologian, East and > West, accepted some form of subordinationism **at least up to the year** > **355.**” If Hanson is right, then the delegates at Nicaea, who accepted the Nicene Creed, must have read that creed as consistent with their subordinationist views. The creed starts with the words: > “We believe in one God, the Father Almighty ... And in one Lord Jesus > Christ.” This seems to exclude the Son as that “one God” and as “Almighty.” But the creed goes on to describe the Son as: > "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God … homoousion with > the Father" This seems to describe the Son as equal with the Father and would be inconsistent with Hanson’s statement that the delegates at Nicaea were subordinationists. For that reason, I ask: What evidence is there that the original framers of the 325 Nicene Creed intended it to be read in subordinationist ways?

Depending on your tradition, the [Nicene Creed](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed) may or may not say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father: > (Greek) τὸ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον - who from the Father proceeds
(Latin) qui ex Patre **Filioque** procedit - who from the Father **and the Son** proceeds This has been a point of contention between the Orthodox and Western churches, the latter category including both Catholics and Protestants, for at least a thousand years, contributing to the [Great Schism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East-West_Schism) . I have read about the history of "[filioque](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque) " but I have basically no idea what the theological difference is meant to be. I understand that there is some doubt about whether "ἐκπορευόμενον" means the same thing as "procedit", so both versions could be right (and apparently we all agree it would be wrong to insert "and the Son" into the Greek) but I don't see what either version of "proceeding" is meant to imply about the nature of the Trinity. If the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, or from the Father alone, what does that actually mean for our understanding of God?

The common interpretation of > "we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins" in the 381 [Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed#Comparison_between_creed_of_325_and_creed_of_381) was [baptismal regeneration](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptismal_regeneration) which makes many Baptists uncomfortable, although recent Baptist scholars *still* advocate that Baptists confess it (see how Gavin Ortlund [argued for a Baptist interpretation](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f41aB2y8CvQ&t=912s) , see also CBR article [Baptists and the Baptism Clause](https://www.centerforbaptistrenewal.com/blog/2024/6/20/one-baptism-for-the-remission-of-sins-baptists-and-the-baptism-clause)) . My question has to do with the origin of what looks like an expansion from the clause in the [Apostle's Creed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles%27_Creed) that merely states > "I believe in ... the forgiveness of sins, ...". **How did baptism become linked to that clause in the first place?** What debate / heresy precipitated this? Is "one" the keyword here (thus anticipating the Anabaptist controversy centuries later)? Why not leave it simply as "forgiveness of sins"? Who were the church fathers / theologians advocating for the expansion? Was it a deliberate expansion from the Apostle's creed, or was it added to the 325 Nicene Creed independent of it? Did the original meaning of that clause really have to do with "baptismal regeneration" or were the framers thinking of something else, such as emphasizing the word "for" (see [Gavin Ortlund's video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f41aB2y8CvQ&t=912s) for the many nuances and the associated Bible verses for each) ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed says: > And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father > [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of > God,] Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being > of one substance with the Father; How are the Son and the Father different? In the Nicene Creed it seems that they are separate persons but sharing the same substance. Do Catholics believe that there is a substance out of which God is made? What is the "substance" being discussed here? We cannot say that Jesus is God in the sense of identity, because then Jesus is God and the Father is God so Jesus is the Father, which contradicts the doctrine.

In the “centuries-old account of the Council of Nicaea: … The whole power of the mysterious dogma is at once established by the one word homoousios … with one pronouncement the Church identified a term (homoousios) that secured its … beliefs against heresy. ... Such older accounts are deeply mistaken ” (LA, 11) “What is conventionally regarded as the key-word in the Creed homoousion, falls completely out of the controversy very shortly after the Council of Nicaea and is not heard of for over twenty years.” (Hanson Lecture ) “For nearly twenty years after Nicaea nobody mentions homoousios, not even Athanasius. This may be because it was much less significant than either later historians of the ancient Church or modern scholars thought that it was.” (RH, 170) “During the years 326–50 the term homoousios is rarely if ever mentioned.” (LA, 431) “After Nicaea homoousios is not mentioned again in truly contemporary sources for two decades. … It was not seen as that useful or important.” (LA, 96) “During the years 325–42 neither Arius nor the particular technical terminology used at Nicaea were at the heart of theological controversy.” (LA, 100) The word homoousios appears only once in Athanasius’ the Orations. This is understood as “evidence of Athanasius’ lack of commitment to Nicaea's terminology at this stage of his career.” (LA, 115) “Athanasius' decision to make Nicaea and homoousios central to his theology has its origins in the shifting climate of the 350s and the structure of emerging Homoian theology.” (LA, 144) > LA = Lewis Ayres Nicaea and its legacy, 2004 Ayres is a Professor of > Catholic and Historical Theology at Durham University in the United > Kingdom. > > RH = Bishop R.P.C. Hanson The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God > – The Arian Controversy 318-381, 1987 Question: Why was the term homoousios not part of the controversy during the 25 years from 325-350 and when and why did this change, so that it is today regarded as the key term in the Nicene Creed?

In the book *[Are you Really that Stupid? Observations of a Skeptical Believer](http://amzn.to/1KARD6p)* , author Joshua Christian makes the claim that the Nicene Creed was accepted under less than ideal (from a theological standpoint) circumstances, involving political maneuvering, blackmail, threats as well as actual instances of violence, in an effort by Constantine to forge a "unified" church, and thus a unified empire. > [Constantine] now began to pressure all bishops to sign. Arians refusing to sign were exiled. > ... > The pressure from the emperor was so great and his reactions so feared that attendees justified their signatures thusly; Apuleius wrote "I pass over in silence... those sublime and Platonic doctrines understood by very few of the pious, and absolutely unknown to every one of the profane." "the soul is nothing worse for a little ink." > Abu Al-Hassan Al-Nadwi reported that **out of the 2030 attendees, only 318 readily accepted the creed.** Only after returning home did other attendees ... summon the courage to express to Constantine in writing how much they regretted having put their signatures to the Nicene formula, "We committed an impious act, O Prince ... by subscribing to blasphemy from fear of you." (Emphasis mine) To what extent is this an accurate account of the Council of Nicaea?