In 313 AD, a man named Arius was fast becoming the next hero of the Christian Church. He was a popular bishop, pastor and Bible teacher. Arius had an answer for two ancient heresies that had plagued the church from the very beginning.

The first ancient heresy Arius tried to defend the church against was Gnosticism. Gnosticism teaches that the god who created the world is actually the son of an evil god-like woman named Sophia. There’s an ultimate god, but then there’s also many other gods, some evil and some good. Gnosticism teaches that Jesus was one of those secondary gods who came as a revealer to tell people the truth about the evil deceptive god. Gnosticism believes that the evil deceptive god created the world. They teach that this is the god of the Old Testament. Since Gnostics thought that an evil god made the world, they viewed everything in the world as evil and bad.

The second ancient heresy Arius tried to save Christianity from was Modalism. This heresy teaches that there’s only one person in the God-head who only manifests himself in one “mode” at a time. So when God appears in the Old Testament to Moses, God is acting in the mode of the Father. But when God is raising Lazarus from the dead, God is acting in the mode of the Son. God is usually in the mode of the Father.

Arius tried to explain God while maintaining the monotheistic (one-God) truth of Deuteronomy 6:4 which says, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.” However, Arius also knew from his Bible studying and preaching that Jesus is referred to as the, “Son of God.” How can both God be one and Jesus be the Son of God? Arius responds by teaching that Jesus is the greatest of God’s creation Arius believes that Jesus was so superior in God’s creation that he earns the honorary title of, “Son of God.” Jesus has the honorary title, but Jesus is not in essence God. For Arius, any biblical passage speaking of Jesus as God is only highlighting his honorary title. Only God the Father is truly God.

Arius’ view was wildly popular. First of all, it defeats Gnosticism by stating that the Creator from the Old Testament is good. And in His goodness created this wonderful creature: Jesus. Arius is teaching from the Bible that the Gnostics are flat out wrong. A good God can create good things; for example the good Yahweh’s ultimate creation is the perfect Jesus.

Secondly, Arius’ view confronts Modalism by showing that God the Father and Jesus the Son are completely different. The same God is not just appearing in different modes. Jesus and God the Father are distinct persons. The Father is God and Jesus is a creature. Jesus is still the Son of God and is highly exalted, but Deuteronomy 6:4 and monotheism are kept intact.

Almost the entire populace of the Mediterranean world accepts the views of Arius. However, this is where Arius’ heroic fame reaches a climax. Instead of saving Christianity, Arius actually becomes part of the problem. Just because a doctrine of God is almost universally accepted by the people, it doesn’t mean it’s true.

Even though a large portion of the people accepted Arius’ teachings, many of the bishops of the church did not. Arius had secured a biblical interpretation of monotheism, but he did it at the expense of the Son. The emperor Constantine saw that Arianism was threatening to split the church apart. So, in 325 AD, he called for the first ever worldwide gathering of the bishops of the church to meet in Nicea, near the city of Constantinople in modern day Turkey. The entire purpose of their meeting was to define exactly what we mean by the Son of God. What do we mean when we say that Jesus is the Son of God?

The Nicene Creed (325) is the response to Arius. The creed starts with the phrase, “We believe in one God.” So it doesn’t in any way demise monotheism. The bishops could have run from the ideas Arius was bringing up, but instead they realized their responsibility was to embrace the entire biblical knowledge of God.

The Nicene Creed then turned to Arius and said that Jesus was indeed “begotten” from the Father. What does begotten mean? It means being of the same essence. Father’s beget sons who are identical with them in essence. Humans beget humans, they don’t beget chimpanzees. If we are to call Jesus the Son, it is not a reduction of His deity, the concept of Son as being begotten does not challenge His deity; it in fact establishes His deity. Because whatever the Father is, so is the Son. He is true God, because as the Father is true God, He must be true God.

As a result of the Nicene Creed, Arius was exiled. Nicea is arguing that until you have a Trinitarian view of God you do not have a Christian view of God. Even though the doctrine of God was clarified and Arius was exiled, great confusion still existed after the Council of Nicea. People did not know how to interpret phrases from the creed such as, “begotten, not created” and “of the essence of the Father.”

The work of unraveling the semantical dispute fell to a group of 3 men known as the Cappadocians. They gave the church a vocabulary to use in order to grasp and communicate the Trinity. The Cappadocian scholars are: Basil of Caesarea (330-379AD), Gregory of Nazianzus (330-390), and Gregory of Nyssa (330-395). They argued that the terms “essence” and “persons” were not to be understood as synonymous terms. In the singular essence of God exists three persons. In 381, the worldwide bishops of the church packed their bags once again and met at Constantinople to clarify the doctrine of the Trinity. The terms used were now common language throughout the church. The council of Constantinople supports and reiterates Nicea, but clarifies and expounds on the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is barely mentioned at all in the Nicene Creed. William Cunningham states, “There is nothing said in the original Nicene Creed about the Holy Spirit, except the simple mention of His name, because, up to that time, the Scripture doctrine concerning Him had not been a matter of controversial discussion.” In the section about the Holy Spirit the Constantinople Creed states:

And [we believe] in the Holy spirit, the Lord and life-giver, who proceeds from the Father, who is worshiped and glorified together with the Father and Son, who spoke through the prophets.

The Council uses the term “proceed” from their understanding of John 15:26 to explain the Spirit. The Spirit is not another Son; if the Spirit is begotten then the Spirit would have to be a Son. The Spirit is not a Son, but is proceeding from the Father. The Spirit is the means of inspiration and revelation. The one who actually speaks through the prophets is the Spirit.

The Council of Constantinople affirmed both the equality and the distinctiveness of the triune God. The Father is God. Jesus is God. The Spirit is God. Jesus is not the Father. The Spirit is not the Father. The Father is not Jesus or the Spirit. It is very important to note that at Nicea and Constantinople theology is not being created. The doctrine of God is not being created during the time of the theologians (300-600 AD). Instead, that which has always been believed is now being expressed explicitly. It is being explained and defined in order to confront the heresy of Arius.

If you don’t have Arius you don’t need a Nicene Creed. Councils do not create doctrine; they spotlight what was already there. They assist and keep the church from entering into error. The idea that you have to wait 325 years to get a doctrine of God is not true; the doctrine was there, the councils just made the doctrine explicit.

The heresy of Arius is pretty well defeated by the Council of Constantinople. In an irony of history, the defeat of Arius, a man who was trying to save the church, actually results in the clarified doctrine of the Trinity upon which the church will stand for over 1500 years.

The Nicene/Constantinople Creeds still guide the church today in orthodoxy. The importance of the creeds of the 4th century cannot be overstated. However, “creed” and “doctrine” are terms seldom heard in Protestant churches which exist in postmodern societies. It is popular to believe that the church needs to emerge into something new and different in order to save Christianity in the 21st century. We desperately need to learn from Arius’ mistakes and cling to the old ancient truth of our One God who exists in three distinct persons!