You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
The first five centuries of Christianity were marked by intense and often bitter debate about the nature of God, the person of Christ, and the relationship between the divine and the human in the incarnate Lord. These controversies were addressed — and formally settled — by a series of ecumenical councils: gatherings of bishops from across the Christian world that defined orthodox doctrine and condemned what they judged to be heresy. The creeds these councils produced remain foundational statements of belief for Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and most Protestant churches today. For AQA candidates, the councils matter because they show how the Church arrived at the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, and they raise sharp evaluative questions about the relationship between theological truth and political power.
The most serious theological crisis of the early Church was the Arian controversy. Arius (c. AD 256–336), a presbyter (priest) in Alexandria, taught that the Son of God — the Logos, or Word — was a created being: the first and greatest of God's creatures, but not eternal and not truly God. Arius reasoned that if God is uniquely uncreated, then the Son, being begotten, must belong to the order of created things. His position can be summarised in several claims:
Arius appealed to Scripture for support, citing texts in which the Son appears subordinate to the Father — "the Father is greater than I" (John 14:28), and Proverbs 8:22, which in the Greek version describes Wisdom as something the Lord "created" at the beginning of his works, a passage Arians applied to the pre-existent Christ. They also pressed the philosophical point that to be God is to be unbegotten and without beginning; since the Son is "begotten", the Son must have had a beginning and so cannot be God in the fullest sense. The appeal of Arianism lay partly in its apparent simplicity: it preserved a strict monotheism and a clear distinction between the one God and everything else.
Arius's teaching was opposed with great determination by Athanasius (c. AD 296–373), deacon and later bishop of Alexandria. Against the Arian reading of subordinationist texts, the defenders of Nicaea distinguished between what is said of Christ in respect of his humanity (in which he can be called "lesser") and what is said of him in respect of his divinity (in which he is equal to the Father); and they marshalled the many texts that ascribe full divinity to the Son. Athanasius's central argument was soteriological — that is, it concerned salvation. Only God can save; if Christ is a creature, however exalted, he cannot bridge the infinite gulf between God and humanity, and therefore cannot save. As Athanasius put it in his treatise On the Incarnation, God became human so that humanity might be brought to share in God's life. Athanasius therefore insisted that the Son is homoousios — "of the same substance" as the Father — eternally begotten, not made.
Key term: Homoousios — Greek for "of the same substance" or "of one being". Enshrined at Nicaea, it affirms that the Son shares the identical divine nature of the Father. The rival term homoiousios ("of similar substance"), differing by a single letter (the Greek iota), was favoured by those seeking compromise; orthodoxy rejected it as insufficient.
The First Council of Nicaea was convened by the emperor Constantine, who, having recently embraced Christianity, was alarmed that doctrinal division threatened the unity of his empire. It was the first ecumenical ("worldwide") council; tradition records that around 318 bishops attended. Its primary purpose was to resolve the Arian controversy.
The council produced the Nicene Creed, which affirmed that the Son is:
The creed explicitly anathematised (formally condemned) those who say "there was when he was not" or that the Son is of a different substance from the Father. Nicaea also settled practical matters, including a common method for dating Easter and the recognition of the precedence of the major sees (Rome, Alexandria, Antioch).
The choice of the word homoousios was bold and, to some, troubling. It is not a biblical term, and it had a chequered history — it had earlier been used by, and associated with, views the Church had rejected. Many bishops would have preferred to confine themselves to scriptural language. But the difficulty was precisely that the Arians could accept all the biblical titles of the Son ("Word", "Son", even "God") while reinterpreting them in a subordinationist sense. A non-biblical, technically precise term was needed to exclude the Arian interpretation unambiguously, and homoousios served that purpose: no Arian could affirm that the Son is "of the same substance" as the Father. The episode shows the Church being driven, by the pressure of controversy, to develop new conceptual tools in order to safeguard the meaning of Scripture — a pattern that would recur throughout the conciliar period.
It is worth stressing that Nicaea did not end the dispute overnight. For much of the fourth century Arianism remained powerful, sometimes enjoying imperial favour; Athanasius himself was exiled five times. Orthodoxy was secured only after decades of further conflict, and at times — as the theologian Jerome later put it — "the whole world groaned and was astonished to find itself Arian." The decades after 325 saw a bewildering succession of rival councils and compromise formulae, many promoting homoiousios ("of similar substance") as a middle way. The single-letter difference between homoousios and homoiousios — the Greek iota — became proverbial for a distinction that seemed trivial to outsiders but on which, for Athanasius and his allies, the whole gospel of salvation depended.
It can be tempting to dismiss these controversies as abstract quarrels over Greek metaphysics. The Church Fathers did not see them so. For Athanasius, the issue was soteriological — about salvation — through and through. His governing conviction, expressed in On the Incarnation, was that "God became man so that man might become god" (that is, might be brought to share in God's eternal life, a hope the Greek tradition called theosis or deification). But this rescue is only possible if the one who unites humanity to God is himself truly God. A creature, however exalted, stands on the wrong side of the gulf between Creator and creation; only God can bridge it. Hence Arius's teaching, by making the Son a creature, would render salvation impossible. The same logic drove the affirmation of the Spirit's divinity: if it is the Spirit who sanctifies us and makes us God's children, then the Spirit too must be divine, for only God can divinise. The doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation were therefore not speculative luxuries but the necessary conditions of the salvation the Church believed it had received.
Key term: Soteriology — the area of theology concerned with salvation (Greek sōtēria). The soteriological argument — "only God can save" — was the decisive motive behind the rejection of Arianism.
The First Council of Constantinople, convened by the emperor Theodosius I, reaffirmed the Nicene faith and extended the creed to address the divinity of the Holy Spirit. A group known as the Pneumatomachi ("Spirit-fighters") had denied that the Spirit is fully divine. Drawing on the theological work of the Cappadocian Fathers — Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa, who developed the formula of one ousia (essence) in three hypostases (persons) — the council affirmed that the Holy Spirit is "the Lord, the giver of life", who "proceeds from the Father" and "with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified".
The expanded creed — the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed — is the creed recited in most churches today. It expresses the definitive Trinitarian statement: one God in three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, co-equal, co-eternal and of one substance.
A later Western addition — the Filioque clause ("and the Son"), asserting that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son — was inserted by the Latin Church but never accepted by the Greek Church, which objected both to its theology and to the unilateral alteration of an ecumenical creed. This dispute became one of the contributing factors to the Great Schism of 1054 between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.
The councils of Nicaea and Constantinople together gave classic shape to the doctrine of the Trinity: the belief that the one God exists eternally as three distinct persons — Father, Son and Holy Spirit — who are co-equal, co-eternal and of one substance (ousia). The crucial conceptual breakthrough came from the Cappadocian Fathers, who distinguished between ousia (the one divine essence or being, which the three persons share) and hypostasis (the distinct mode of existence of each person). The formula "one ousia, three hypostases" allowed the Church to affirm both the unity of God (against tritheism, the error of three gods) and the genuine distinction of the persons (against modalism, the error that Father, Son and Spirit are merely three "masks" or roles of a single person).
The doctrine sought to do justice to the witness of Scripture, which speaks of the Father as God, presents the Son as divine — "the Word was God" (John 1:1); "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30) — and treats the Spirit as personal and divine, while insisting throughout, in continuity with Israel's faith, that "the Lord our God, the Lord is one" (Deuteronomy 6:4). The Trinity is the Church's attempt to hold these affirmations together: not three gods, nor one God in three temporary disguises, but one God in three eternal persons.
It is important to note that the word "Trinity" (Latin trinitas, first used by Tertullian around AD 200) does not appear in the Bible, and critics — then and now — have charged that the doctrine reads later Greek philosophical categories back into the simpler faith of the New Testament. Defenders reply that, while the terminology is post-biblical, the doctrine articulates what is genuinely present in Scripture: the early Christians worshipped Jesus as Lord and experienced the Spirit as God, and the doctrine of the Trinity is the disciplined attempt to say how this can be true without abandoning monotheism. The councils did not invent the data; they provided the grammar for speaking of it coherently.
The development of Trinitarian doctrine also illustrates an important principle: that Christian doctrine develops. The New Testament does not contain a worked-out doctrine of the Trinity; what it contains are the raw materials — the worship of Christ, the experience of the Spirit, the inherited monotheism of Israel — which the Church, pressed by controversy, gradually articulated into formal doctrine over some three centuries. Whether this is seen as a legitimate unfolding of what was always implicit (the view of John Henry Newman in his classic essay on the development of doctrine), or as an unwarranted accretion of philosophy onto a simpler original faith (the charge of many critics from the Enlightenment onward), is itself a major question in the philosophy of religion. The councils are the great test case: did they discover and define the truth latent in revelation, or did they construct something new? One's answer shapes one's whole estimate of doctrinal authority.
Key term: Modalism (Sabellianism) — the heresy that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not three distinct persons but three "modes" or appearances of one divine person. Trinitarian orthodoxy rejects modalism by affirming three eternally distinct hypostases.
The Council of Ephesus addressed the Nestorian controversy. Nestorius (c. AD 386–450), Patriarch of Constantinople, objected to calling the Virgin Mary Theotokos ("God-bearer" or "Mother of God"). He argued that Mary gave birth to the humanity of Christ, not to God, and proposed instead the title Christotokos ("Christ-bearer"). His critics charged that this effectively divided Christ into two distinct persons — one divine, one human — loosely conjoined.
Cyril of Alexandria (c. AD 376–444) led the opposition, insisting on the unity of Christ's person: the one born of Mary is the eternal Son made flesh, so Mary may rightly be called Theotokos. The council upheld Cyril's position and condemned and deposed Nestorius. The term Theotokos was affirmed not primarily as a statement about Mary but as a safeguard of the unity of Christ: to deny that Mary is the "God-bearer" is, in effect, to deny that the child she bore is truly God, and so to divide the one Christ. The proceedings at Ephesus were chaotic and bitterly partisan — Cyril's supporters convened and condemned Nestorius before the bishops from Antioch had even arrived, and a rival session reached the opposite verdict — which illustrates how far the councils were shaped by ecclesiastical rivalry as well as by theology. A measure of reconciliation was reached two years later in the Formula of Reunion (433), which combined Cyrilline and Antiochene language and anticipated the balance later struck at Chalcedon.
The Council of Chalcedon is the most important of all the councils for Christology. It responded to the teaching of Eutyches (c. AD 380–456), who held that after the incarnation Christ had only one nature, the humanity being absorbed into the divinity "like a drop of honey in the sea". This view is known as Monophysitism (from monos, "one", and physis, "nature").
The council produced the Chalcedonian Definition, which remains the benchmark of orthodox Christology. It confesses one and the same Christ, perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, truly God and truly man, acknowledged "in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation", the distinction of the natures being in no way removed by the union, but the property of each nature being preserved and coming together in one person (prosopon) and one hypostasis.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.