Nicene Christology: Councils, Creeds, and Modern Faith

The Four Ecumenical Councils

The Council of Nicaea convened in 325. The Council of Constantinople followed in 381. The Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon were convened in 431 and 451, respectively. At all of these councils, the main issues centered on the nature and personhood of Christ: His relationship to the Father, the relationship of the Holy Spirit to both, the meaning of the Trinity, and the humanity and divinity of Christ. These questions were discussed and argued in various ways for more than one hundred years as new ways of thinking about Jesus and God continued to arise. Figures such as Arius and Nestorius attempted to apply logic and reason to questions that the Church held must largely be taken on faith. In other words, they tried to rationalize the God-Man so that the concept would make logical sense, but the Church insisted that its members accept the mystery of Christ as both deity and man simultaneously.

The main issue at the Council of Nicaea was the Arian heresy. Arius had raised questions about the nature of Christ—was he wholly God or wholly man? What was his nature? Arius held an essentially anti-Trinitarian view of God and believed that Christ was begotten by the Father but did not pre-exist like the Father from all eternity. Thus, Arius maintained that Christ had a different nature. The Council proclaimed that Christ had two natures—human and divine—both existing simultaneously in His one Person, which was equal to the other two Persons of the Holy Trinity. The Nicene Creed was codified, defining Christ as being consubstantial with the Father.

Emperor Theodosius called the Council of Constantinople to order. The Nicene Creed had to be confirmed, the Macedonian heresy had to be addressed, Arianism remained an ongoing issue, and a new pope needed to be selected who was not an Arian. Athanasius had been exiled for his opposition to Arianism, as many church members had leaned toward the heresy. At the same time, the Macedonian heresy attacked the divinity of the Holy Spirit. The outcome was that the Creed was confirmed and both heresies were condemned.

Emperor Theodosius II called the Council of Ephesus to order. The heresies of Nestorius and Pelagius were addressed, including the claim that Mary had conceived only the man Jesus and not God the Christ. Cyril of Alexandria opposed Nestorius, who advocated for the position that Mary had conceived only the human nature of Jesus—making her Christokos rather than Theotokos. Cyril convinced the Council that Nestorius was wrong, though Nestorius himself refused to submit.

Emperor Marcian called the Council of Chalcedon to order. Nestorius was still propagating the idea that Christ had two distinct personalities rather than two natures. The Council sought to establish that Christ had one whole and unified personality—that He was both God and man, without any division or separation between his two natures at any point. The Chalcedonian Definition put forward by the Council affirmed that Christ had two natures joined in hypostasis. Christ was thus affirmed as one Person rather than as having two distinct personalities: He possessed two natures hypostatically unified within one person. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, who had attended the council and had been sympathetic to Nestorius, agreed to reject the Nestorian position in order to retain his standing in the Church. With that concession, the Nestorian heresy began to fade.

Doctrinal Outcomes of the Councils

The Church Fathers reached their conclusions because it was essential to recognize Christ as being one with the Father and the Holy Spirit, and as possessing unity within himself. Allowing Christ to be defined solely as a man opened the door to the complete rejection of his divinity. Indeed, Meyendorff (1964) argues that the Arian heresy helped contribute to the development of Islam, which viewed Christ only as a prophet and not as divine. The Church was thus conscious that separating Christ's divinity from his humanity would cause some to view him as man only—which, Meyendorff (1964) contends, is precisely what Islam did. Accordingly, the Council of Nicaea affirmed the two natures of Christ; the Council of Constantinople affirmed the Trinity; the Council of Ephesus affirmed the Theotokos; and the Council of Chalcedon affirmed the hypostatic union.

By affirming the single personhood of Christ, the dual-nature aspect of his being, and the union of the three divine persons in one God—that is, the Trinity—the Church was able to clearly define the doctrines that early Christians were expected to hold. The Nicene Creed and the Chalcedonian Definition brought clarity to issues that were causing serious division and threatening the unity of the Church. Athanasius, after all, spent considerable time in exile because he was rejected by the Arians within the Church, yet he is now recognized as a saint. The Church was thus in danger of being overwhelmed by views that would have undermined teachings handed down from the Apostles, and the councils helped to resolve these disputes over time. Ando (2008) notes that it was necessary for the Empire to have a cohesive and clearly defined supporting religion, and that this political reality was another reason why the councils needed to articulate what adherents of Christianity were expected to believe—doing so helped preserve order in the Eastern Empire while the West fell into decline.

Conclusion: The Case for Doctrinal Clarity

My church's adherence to Nicene orthodoxy shapes its message of salvation: we believe that Christ died for our sins to save us and that he possessed this redemptive power because he was true God and true Man. On that point, we are in agreement with Nicene orthodoxy. Among friends who belong to other churches, however, there is little concern about whether Christ lived or not, because they approach faith as a story whose value lies in its moral and emotional utility rather than in any real spiritual power.

I believe that contemporary Christian thinking should become more aligned with the Nicene Creed because it helps to define who we are and what we believe. If Christians wish to come together as a community, they must be part of one church and one faith, grounded in the teachings handed down through the tradition rather than in beliefs fashioned to suit individual preference.

References

Ando, C. (2008). Decline, fall, and transformation. Journal of Late Antiquity, 1(1), 31–60.

Bingham, J. (2014). Pocket history of the Church. InterVarsity Press.

Meyendorff, J. (1964). Byzantine views of Islam. Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 18, 113–132.