Title of Essay
Write an essay of approximately 1500 words on the following topic, making reference to appropriate primary sources where possible, and explaining their significance for the subsequent history of the church: The Christological debates of the fourth century (with special attention to the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople) and the creeds they produced). Why did the debate drag on for decades after the Council of Nicaea?
Commentary:
This was a fascinating study of the lead up to the Niceaen Council and the subsequent development to the Nicene Council in Constantinople. It was quite interesting delving into the various threads that led to one of the most important statements of the early Church. Being an ex-Unitarian with a fairly skewed history around the outcomes of the so-called Arian controversy, I really appreciated the opportunity to engage with this important topic. 90% for this one.
Abstract
The so-called Arian Controversy is frequently presented as a debate originating with Arius of Alexandria and resolved at the Council of Nicaea in 325. This essay argues that this framing is historically insufficient. Arius was a synthesiser of pre-existing subordinationist currents rather than an originator, drawing particularly on Neoplatonist thought by way of Origen. Nicaea’s response was necessarily incomplete, producing a creedal formula whose central term, homoousios, generated as much controversy as it resolved. The decades of Christological debate following Nicaea reflect the persistence of these deeper theological currents, compounded by imperial political interference, until Constantinople in 381 provided a more complete resolution. The persistence of subordinationist theology in modern Unitarian movements demonstrates the ongoing explanatory power of this thesis.
Introduction
The Nicaean Council was ostensibly a debate about Arius’ denial of the “true divinity (and true humanity) of Jesus” with the subtext that “no mere man can save other men from their sins… if Christ is not truly God, then the church which worships Christ is guilty of idolatry and blasphemy against God”.[1] However, R.P.C. Hanson makes the case that the Arian Controversy has gained significance predominantly because of Nicaea rather than through the significance of Arius who was not a particularly significant writer of the time or because his doctrine was the foremost “controversy” of the time among many sharp debates.[2]
Arius didn’t spring into being in a vacuum. He took the already rich territory of 1st and 2nd Century thought and synthesised it. He was the lightning rod that became the focus for the ensuing decades of debate. Therefore, the debate wasn’t truly reliant on Arius (Nicaea made him famous rather than any fame prior to then), but the ideas were extant and took time to close out, especially given the less than conclusory language of the Creed and the imperial uncertainty.
The Arius “Controversy”
That Arius became the focus of the emperor post Nicaea is incontrovertible from Constantine’s letters to Arius and the church in Nicomedia where he urges Arius to recant and threatens “restraint” against those who support him.[3] Hanson points out that we have little direct evidence of what Arius taught probably because of the Constantinian edict to destroy his works.[4] It is important not to dismiss Arius entirely, but to properly insert him into the context of the Christological debates that raged through the fourth century. His contribution is evident from his correspondence with Constantine, his apparent support from Eusebius of Nicomedia, Eusebius of Caesaria, Theodotus of Laodicea, Paulinus, Athanasius of Anazarbus, Gregory, Aetius and others and the fact that Athanasius of Alexandria found it necessary to firmly oppose him a quarter century later.[5]
The essence of the controversy is that the Arians attempted to sacrifice the eternality of Jesus in favour of the unique ousia of the Father whereas the anti-Arius trajectory was to uphold divine unity with “ousia as a shared substance in distinction to an Antiochene theology of likeness”.[6] For Arius, God is “the only unbegotten, the only eternal, the only one without beginning, the only one who has immortality, the only wise, the only good, the only potentate” and the Monad (God alone) predated the Dyad (God with Christ) before it attained existence.[7]
Pre-Nicene Roots of Subordinationist Thought
Arius was a focus for the Nicaean Council largely because the debate with Alexander became sharp enough to engage the broader church community. Before and after Arius, the development of Christological thought had been happening for Centuries. Whilst Gnosticism has often been cited as informing Arian thought, Arius himself rejects core Gnostic beliefs in “emanation” however does apply the word Gnosis to himself in the Thalia.[8] Neoplatonism by way of Origen[9] appears to have been a strong basis of Arius’ doctrine according to Epiphanius.[10] In particular, Origen comments “so that you might approach and pray to the God and Father of all through our Saviour and High-Priest, the originated God”, which Epiphanius says is supported by another Origen quote “that the only-begotten God is alien from the Father’s Godhead and substance (ousia)”.[11] These subordinationist currents, present in the theological atmosphere long before Arius synthesised them, ensured that condemning Arius at Nicaea would not resolve the underlying questions. [12] Putnam observes in this context the sheer difficulty of combating heresy where orthodoxy wrestles with its own identity, but heresy is remarkable fluid and flexible, somewhat explaining the imprecise effect of the Council of Nicaea.[13]
Nicaea’s Achievement and Ambiguities
Keating states that the Council “achieved what Constantine was seeking in certain respects.”[14] It achieved a creedal statement which ruled out most Arian doctrine. Keating asserts that according to Athanasius, the Council was designed to create a “form of confession” that Arians would not sign.[15] Eusebius in Life says that the Council was called “because of the emperor’s concern over the troubles in Egypt….”[16] Clearly Arius was the target, but in that respect, it could not be asserted that Nicaea achieved its aim.
Nicaea’s conclusions appear to have been ambiguous, particularly in the use of the term homoousios. Eusebius, writing to his clergy in Caesarea, is at pains to explain his acceptance of the term: based on his own creed, the emperor “advised all present to agree to it… with the insertion of [homoousios]… the meaning of the word was examined closely… for he is not of the same being as by dividing his essence…” noting that Athanasius interprets this as complete capitulation by Eusebius.[17] It is plain that, for Eusebius, the insertion of the word needed explanation and development, meaning that the Creed perhaps did not stand on its own merits. This seems to be evidenced further in Life where he admits that the “relentless conflict still raged” in Egypt.[18] The word itself may have had pagan philosophical origins in two divine substances: “mind” (nous) and “Word” (Logos), which would not have endeared itself to the Arian literalistic worldview.[19] Keating asserts that some of the bishops who signed were concerned that the homoousios framing leant dangerously towards a modalistic view of the Father and Son (Sabellianism).[20] Nicaea fairly clearly led to a period of great complexity and did not achieve its original aim of completely ruling out subordinationist (Arian) doctrine which meant that the Christological debate was not settled for some decades.[21]
Four broad categories of doctrine developed between: Homoousians who supported the Nicaea formulation of “same substance”; Homoiousians who formulated a doctrine of “similar substance” between the Father and Son to counter perceived Sabellian implications of homoousios; Homoeans formulating a doctrine of “like” or “similar” to avoid the word ousia or substance, preserving the distinction between father and son; and Anomoeans referencing the Father and Son being “unlike” each other, a later extreme development of Arianism.[22]
The Political Dimension
Keating observes that there were two main trends in doctrine between Nicaea and Constantinople: non-Nicene and Nicene.[23] He adds that there is a political dimension to the adherence to the two camps: the first supported by Constantine’s sons with imperial support for a period, the second supported by Athanasius and then the Cappadocians and ultimately supported by emperor Theodosius leading to the Council in Constantinople in 381.[24] Constantine himself seemed to become conciliatory between the two parties before his death.[25] Subsequent emperors saw Athanasius as a threat to be undermined and this clearly contributed to the ongoing debate.[26] Imperial pressure was applied at various Councils in 357 and 359 to accept the Homoean formulation which was essentially Arian in nature.[27]
Julian the Apostate, initially subordinate to Constantius[28], in the middle of the raging controversy, ascended to imperial rule in 361 and reigned until 363, attempting to revive a pagan form of monotheism, despite having been raised a Christian.[29] The effect of Julian’s imperial influence towards pagan monotheism was unifying the church towards pro-Nicaean doctrine.[30]
Constantinople as Completion
In 381, emperor Theodosius called the council of Constantinople which would lead to the Nicene Creed, completing the work commenced in Nicaea nearly 60 years prior and somewhat bringing to a conclusion the decades of Christological debate.[31] Ferguson notes that the text of the Nicene Creed is quoted in the work of Epiphanius dated before the council which may have been a scribal error in copying Epiphanius’ work or possibly the creed was already existent.[32] Keating notes that some scholars argue that the two creeds are two distinct documents, citing both Kelly and Hanson, but contests this argument.[33] He argues that historically the reverence for the original creed would obviate a completely new creed, noting Basil the Great’s obvious reverence for it in 377, just prior to Constantinople.[34] He also notes that with limited exception, the entire Creed from Nicaea is adopted into the Nicene Creed.[35] He shows that the terminology and additional clauses are designed for a “new season and a new purpose” to counter doctrines such as those held by Marcellus of Ancyra.[36] Kelly suggests that the Council of Constantinople intended to “simply confirm the Nicene faith.”[37] Ultimately, Theodosius’ decrees after the Council made pro-Nicene doctrine the official religion of the empire and became consensus fidelium.[38]
Arianism Today
The creed first proposed in Nicaea in 325, reinforced in 381 at Constantinople and in 451 at Chalcedon, was a means of waging a struggle against Arianism that continues today in Unitarianism.[39] The most notable unitarian faiths today developed out of the American Restorationist movement in the early 1800s. The larger faith is that of the Jehovah’s Witnesses which is Arian.[40] A smaller group is the Christadelphians who are unitarian but not Arian.[41] This is testament to the persistence of this heresy 1700 years later. In counter, many Evangelical churches still recite the Nicene Creed today, reaffirming the faith, hard won and stated by faithful believers so many centuries ago.
Conclusion
The Nicene Creed was hard fought and had a very difficult birth in the fourth century. Nevertheless, it is a restatement of the faith, once delivered to the saints and expressed in the inspired Scriptures. It is the result of orthodoxy asserting itself against the broad range of views extant in the lead up to Nicaea, persisting through Constantinople and Cappadocia and even in a smaller fashion in Unitarian groups today. Nicaea failed to address the underlying disease of broader subordinationist thought and sought rather to address the symptom in Arius. It took the substantial work of Athanasius and ultimately Constantinople and Chalcedon to finally complete the broader Christological settlement.
[1] Rhyne R Putnam, “Before and After Nicaea: Arianism as a Test Case for the Ongoing Development of Heresy,” Criswell Theological Review 18.1 (2020): 4.
[2] R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318-381 (Baker Academic, 1988; repr., T & T Clark, 2005), xvii–xviii.
[3] Glen L Thompson, “EYEWITNESSES TO HISTORY: The Council of Nicaea in the Ancient Sources,” Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly 122.4 (2025): 249–50.
[4] Hanson, Arian Controversy, 5–6; Thompson, “Ancient Sources,” 250.
[5] Hanson, Arian Controversy, 6–9; Thompson, “Ancient Sources,” 261.
[6] Adam R Renberg, “Antioch, Nicaea, and the Synthesis of Constantinople: Revisiting Trajectories in the Fourth-Century Christological Debates,” Church History 94.2 (2025): 381, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0009640725101972; Putnam, “Test Case,” 10.
[7] Arius Letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia quoted in Putnam, “Test Case,” 10.
[8] Hanson, Arian Controversy, 60–61.
[9] Everett Ferguson, Church History: From Christ to the Pre-Reformation, 2nd ed. (2005; Zondervan Academic, 2013), One:133.
[10] Hanson, Arian Controversy, 61; Putnam, “Test Case,” 8–10.
[11] Quoted in Hanson, Arian Controversy, 62.
[12] Ferguson, Church History, One:134.
[13] Putnam, “Test Case,” 20.
[14] Daniel A Keating, “The Creed of Nicaea (325) and the Nicene Creed (381): Continuity, Development, and Significance,” Word & World 45.3 (2025): 288.
[15] Keating, “Continuity,” 288.
[16] Quoted in Thompson, “Ancient Sources,” 257.
[17] Quoted in Thompson, “Ancient Sources,” 259; See also Athanasius quoted in Thompson, “Ancient Sources,” 262.
[18] Quoted in Thompson, “Ancient Sources,” 260.
[19] Ferguson, Church History, One:195; Putnam, “Test Case,” 15.
[20] Keating, “Continuity,” 288.
[21] Ferguson, Church History, One:199.
[22] Ferguson, Church History, One:201–2.
[23] Keating, “Continuity,” 288.
[24] Keating, “Continuity,” 288; DD Emmons, “CHURCH at a CROSSROADS: How the First Council of Nicaea Addressed One of History’s Most Dangerous Heresies,” The Priest 81.2 (2025): 31.
[25] Ferguson, Church History, One:200.
[26] Emmons, “Dangerous Heresies,” 31.
[27] Ferguson, Church History, One:202–3.
[28] Hanson, Arian Controversy, 465.
[29] Ferguson, Church History, One:206.
[30] Ferguson, Church History, One:207; Hanson, Arian Controversy, 467.
[31] Ferguson, Church History, One:208–9.
[32] Ferguson, Church History, One:209.
[33] Keating, “Continuity,” 289–90.
[34] Keating, “Continuity,” 290.
[35] Keating, “Continuity,” 291.
[36] Keating, “Continuity,” 291.
[37] Quoted in Keating, “Continuity,” 292.
[38] Ferguson, Church History, One:209–10.
[39] David Carter, “The Nicene Creed and the Gift of Unity,” Ecumenical Trends 54.4 (2025): 13.
[40] Maurice C. (Maurice Claude) Burrell, “Twentieth Century Arianism: An Examination of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ Held by Jehovah’s Witnesses,” Churchman 80.2 (1966): 130.
[41] Julian Clementson, “The Christadelphians and the Doctrine of the Trinity,” The Evangelical Quarterly 75.2 (2003): 157.
Bibliography
Burrell, Maurice C. (Maurice Claude). “Twentieth Century Arianism: An Examination of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ Held by Jehovah’s Witnesses.” Churchman 80.2 (1966): 130–39.
Carter, David. “The Nicene Creed and the Gift of Unity.” Ecumenical Trends 54.4 (2025): 12–16.
Clementson, Julian. “The Christadelphians and the Doctrine of the Trinity.” The Evangelical Quarterly 75.2 (2003): 157–76.
Emmons, DD. “CHURCH at a CROSSROADS: How the First Council of Nicaea Addressed One of History’s Most Dangerous Heresies.” The Priest 81.2 (2025): 25–31.
Ferguson, Everett. Church History: From Christ to the Pre-Reformation. 2nd ed. Vol. One. 2005. Repr., Zondervan Academic, 2013.
Hanson, R. P. C. The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318-381. Baker Academic, 1988. Repr., T & T Clark, 2005.
Keating, Daniel A. “The Creed of Nicaea (325) and the Nicene Creed (381): Continuity, Development, and Significance.” Word & World 45.3 (2025): 286–97.
Putnam, Rhyne R. “Before and After Nicaea: Arianism as a Test Case for the Ongoing Development of Heresy.” Criswell Theological Review 18.1 (2020): 3–21.
Renberg, Adam R. “Antioch, Nicaea, and the Synthesis of Constantinople: Revisiting Trajectories in the Fourth-Century Christological Debates.” Church History 94.2 (2025): 380–82. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0009640725101972.
Thompson, Glen L. “EYEWITNESSES TO HISTORY: The Council of Nicaea in the Ancient Sources.” Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly 122.4 (2025): 245–68.