In order to communicate the message of the gospel to Greeks, early Christians incorporated the use of Greek Philosophy. This proved helpful as they showed consistencies between Greek thought and the God of Christ. It was easy to discuss the gospel among intellectuals. Pagan philosophers believed in a supreme being. Early Christians used this notion to say that they believed in the same Supreme Being. Plato, Plotinus, and other philosophers viewed the Supreme Being as perfection: “immutable, impassible, and fixed.”[1] This eventually created a problem for the personal God of the gospel. Interaction with imperfect mankind was only performed through the Logos, Word or Reason, of God since he was considered immutable. The perfect would not interact with imperfection.
A popular presbyter of Alexandria, Arius, debated that the Logos could not be co-eternal with God. Though the Logos was the first of all God’s creatures, he could not have originated with God. The immutable God interacted through the Logos with the mutable world. The bishop of Alexandria, Alexander, argued that the Logos was divine and co-eternal with God. As bishop, Alexander condemned Arius’ teaching and removed him from his offices in the church. Emperor Constantine sent a mediator to help the church arrive at an agreement, but was unsuccessful. Constantine then called for a council assembly of bishops from all areas. The task was to set standard policies.
Constantine covered the expenses for the bishops to travel and assemble at Nicea, near Constantinople, in AD 325. Many matters were settled such as the election of bishops and standardizing the procedures of legislative matters. Many of the other bishops were unaware of the difficult issue between Arius and Alexander. Those who supported Arius were called Arians. The view of Arianism was presented by Eusebius of Nicomedia since Arius was not a bishop. Bishop Alexander presented the direct opposition to the Arians. The bishops of the West viewed the disagreement as a settled matter; agreeing with the notion of Tertullian that God exists as one in three persons. A group with a view that will later be called patripassianism viewed God and Christ as truly one substance. It was God who died at the cross, for example. These represent the major viewpoints.
When bishop Eusebius made his speech in support of Arianism, it was not well received by the majority of bishops. The view that Christ was no more than a creature was a hostile notion. The majority now saw the importance in the matter and decided that a clear stand against this doctrine must be taken. The Nicene Creed was established to clearly outline that the universal church believed in the full deity of Christ.
We believe in one God… And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of the Father, that is, from the substance of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father…[2]
Those who would not sign this document were declared heretical. Eusebius did not sign. This hoped to put an end to the controversy, but it did not. Constantine banished the heretical bishops. This set a precedence in which later ecclesiastical intervention would be presented to secular authority. Eventually, Eusebius and Arius won the approval of Constantine again and were allowed back into their cities. Constantine asked the bishops to reinstate them in the communion of believers. Eusebius and Arius convinced Constantine to banish Bishop Alexander’s successor, Athanasius. One of Constantine’s three sons, Constantine II, eventually reinstated Athanasius. War broke out between his sons, two of which favored Arianism, and Athanasius was banished again. When his son Constantius became the sole emperor, all bishops supporting Nicea were banished.
[1] Gonzales, Justo L. The Story of Christianity. Vol. 1. San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1994, p. 161.
[2] The first sentences of the Nicene Creed as presented by Gonzales, p. 165.
ective is centered on the idea of knowledge. However, this view arrives at the opposite conclusion. They believe that truth about any deity or knowledge in general is simply unknowable.