One of the central battled cries of the sixteenth-century Protestant Reformation was Sola Scripture—Scripture Alone! The Reformers rightly criticized the Roman Catholic Church’s elevation of church tradition to the level of Scripture, instead insisting that “neither the Church nor the pope can establish articles of faith. These must come from Scripture” (Martin Luther).

Yet at the same time, each of the Reformers held the historic Christian creeds in high regard, particularly considering the Nicene Creed to be a clear and even authoritative articulation of the deity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity and an essential safeguard against heresies like Arianism.

So what are we to do with this? How do we reconcile the supreme authority of God’s Word over all matters of faith and practice with what almost every significant theologian in church history has believed about the necessity of historic creeds like the Nicene Creed?

Should we adopt the seemingly noble motto, “No creed but the Bible,” or should we recognize the Nicene Creed as important to what we believe?

We need look no further than the original impetus for the formation of the Nicene Creed to recognize why, although the Bible is the “norming norm which is not normed” and our supreme authority, the Nicene Creed is normative for the Christian faith, under the authority of Scripture.

The Greatest Controversy in the History of Christianity

Without question, the greatest controversy in the history of Christianity was the threat of Arianism in the fourth century. Arius (256–336) taught that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was created by the Father and thus subordinate to the Father. “When the Son was not, the Father was God,” became his creed.

Arius was largely responding to the false views of Origen, who believed that though the Son was uncreated, he is nevertheless slightly less divine than the Father. Arius argued instead that if the Son is, indeed, less divine than the Father, then he must not be of the same substance as the Father and is simply the first created being.

While not many Christians in the West embraced Arius’s teaching, Christians in the East did. Orthodox theologians such as Alexander of Alexandria opposed Arius, but the controversy reached such an intensity that Emperor Constantine decided it was his responsibility to step into the fray and moderate the debate.

The Slap Heard Around the World

In 325, Constantine convened a council of around 300 bishops and a significantly higher number of other presbyters and deacons to debate the matter in Nicaea, located in the northwestern part of what is now Turkey.

Since Constantine’s primary theological advisor, Hosius of Cordova, was a Western bishop who was convinced of Christ’s full deity, Constantine involved himself in the council’s debates and pushed for an anti-Arian resolution.

Many theologians argued that Arianism contradicted clear teaching from Scripture, including a deacon named Athanasius and a bishop from Myra named Nicholas. Legend says that at one point in the debate, Nicholas slapped Arius across the face and called him a heretic.

Yes, I believe in St. Nicholas—he was a great, anti-Arian theologian!

What resulted is what we now refer to as “The Nicene Creed.” The version of the creed we recite today is a later development (more on that in a moment), but the key language concerning the full deity of Christ was mostly intact in 325:

We believe . . . in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father.

The most important theological development of this statement about Christ is the phrase “of one substance with the Father.” In Greek, “of one substance” is the word homoousios; in Latin it is consubstantial. The word is not a biblical word, but rather a term the Nicene theologians determined was a succinct way to articulate the biblical doctrine of Christ’s deity.

If Christ is “of the same substance” as the Father, then he can be neither created by nor subordinate to the Father. Thus, any teaching claiming that there was a time when the Son was not or that he is less divine than the Father was deemed heresy.

Debate over One Letter

The importance of this word and the creed in which it is found became immediately apparent in the fifty years following Nicaea, where debate over Christ’s deity continued with fervor in the East.

Three different factions within the Eastern Church continued to debate the matter. A small Arian faction continued to defend the idea that the Son of God was created and thus unequal to the Father. The Nicene faction argued that the Son was uncreated and equal to the Father since the Father and Son have the same essence (ousia).

However, a much larger faction who followed Origen’s teachings argued that though the Son was uncreated, he is unequal to the Father. The Origenists thought that the Nicenes were dangerously close to the Sabellian heresy, which taught that the Father and Son are the same person. They also did not like that the Nicenes had invented a non-biblical word (homoousios) to defend what they believed the Bible taught. “No creed but the Bible” was the motto of the Origenists.

The debate led to the formation of a new council in the East in Antioch (341), which created a new creed. This creed, instead of stating that the Father and Son are of the same essence (homoousios), stated that they are of a similar essence (homoiousios).

One little letter “i” made all the difference.

Athanasius’s Battle with the “Christian” Princes

Enter Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria. Athanasius had been present at Nicaea as a deacon and was one of the most articulate defenders of Christ’s full deity. He devoted his life to defend the deity of Christ and orthodox trinitarianism against Arianism.

His primary problem were the pesky emperors.

Five times different emperors exiled Athanasius, hindering his ability to fight the rise of Arianism.

Constantine exiled Athanasius from 335–337 because of false accusations raised by Arians that Athanasius had organized a dock strike in Alexandria.

Constantine’s son, Constantius, exiled Athanasius twice (339–346, 356–362). Constantius was an Arian who insisted, “Whatever I believe must certainly be true, otherwise God would not have delivered the world into my hands.”

When emperor Julian took power in the East, he denied Christianity altogether (earning him the name “Julian the Apostate”), and allowed Athanasius to return. However, when Athanasius resumed debating the Arians, Julian again sent Athanasius into exile.

When Valentinian became emperor, Athanasius once again returned, but Valentinian put his Arian brother Valens in charge of the East, who then banished Athanasius once again.

(This is the problem with giving the state power over the Church!)

Finally, Athanasius was allowed to return to Alexandria in 336, where he spent the final 7 years of his life. Athanasius’s fortitude and endurance, despite all the persecution from various emperors, is the only reason Arianism was eventually defeated.

Cappadocians at Constantinople

Athanasius’s relentless defense of orthodox trinitarianism held back the rise of Arianism until three influential theologians finally achieved unity between Nicenes and Origenists against the Arians.

Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus, bishops in the region of Cappadocia (modern-day Turkey), achieved this unity by persuading both sides to agree upon the theologial language used to describe God.

The problem was with the meaning of two terms: hypostasis and ousia. The Nicenes used both terms to mean “substance,” but the Origenists defined both terms as “persons.”

The Nicenes said that the Father and Son have one hypostasis and one ousia (substance).

But the Origenists said that the Father and Son are two hypostases and two ousiai (persons).

The Cappadocian Fathers proposed that they all agree to use one term to mean substance and the other to mean persons so that they could clearly articulate what the Bible teaches. All parties agreed to use ousia to refer to the one divine essence and hypostasis to refer to the distinct persons of Father, Son, and Spirit.

This allowed all parties to agree against the Arians: God is one ousia (substance) in three hypostases (persons).

This moved the Origenists to stop saying the Son is inferior to the Father and encouraged the Nicenes to unequivocally denounce the Sabellian heresy, uniting both parties against the heretical teaching of Arianism.

The Final Creed Takes Form

At the Council of Constantinople in 381, this new unified anti-Arian party revised the original Nicene Creed, expanding it to also clearly affirm the deity of the Holy Spirit along with the Son. This Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed is the “Nicene Creed” we recite today (with one phrase added later in the sixth century—”and the Son”):

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and
unseen.

We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father; God from
God, Light from Light, true God from true God; begotten not made, one in being with the Father.
Through Him all things were made.

For us and for our salvation He came down from heaven. By the power of the Holy Spirit He became incarnate from the Virgin Mary and was made man. For our sake He was crucified under Pontius Pilate. He suffered death and was buried. On the third day He rose again, in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and His kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son He is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the prophets.

We believe in one, holy, catholic,¹“universal” and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Boundaries of Truth

The history behind the Nicene Creed’s formation illustrates its necessity: the Nicene Creed helps to protect us from unbiblical heresy by unifying us around an agreed-upon summation of the authoritative teaching of Scripture. Creeds are in no way authoritative over Scripture, but creeds like the Nicene Creed are authoritative inasmuch as they accurately reflect Scripture’s doctrine.

Thus, we need creeds. Any time in history where certain groups have championed the creed (irony intended) “No creed but the Bible,” those groups have strayed into theological error and even heresy.

One example will suffice to illustrate the point: During the life and ministry of the great English hymnwriter Isaac Watts, Arianism once again reared its ugly head. In a noble attempt to win over the Arians to a more biblically orthodox position, Isaac Watts essentially adopted a “No creed but the Bible” posture. He thought that by avoiding the historically agreed-upon language of the creeds, such as homoousios, and instead restricting himself to only using the language of Scripture, he would be able to convince the Arians of the full deity of Christ.

Instead, Watts ended up sounding Arian (and even Unitarian) himself. Watts never denied the deity of Christ or orthodox trinitarianism, but he sounded like he did because he used language that contradicted historical creeds. And further, many of those in Watts’s day who claimed to accept no human creed ended up fully denying the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and even the sufficient atonement of Christ.

As we have seen in the historical survey above, the particular terminology and formulas in historic creeds emerged with special care given to avoid heresy, and so we should not be surprised when, in departing from historically accepted formulas, we fall under the charge of heresy, or even actually adopt heretical views.

It is actually quite arrogant to isolate ourselves from the historic doctrinal formations of those who have come before us, assuming we are wiser than they were. If one’s doctrine of the Trinity, for example, departs from the language of the Nicene Creed, then the burden of proof lies with them to prove where the creed is in error.

Creeds are not infallible, nor is their authority over Scripture. Nevertheless, historic creeds are essential to the unity and theological orthodoxy of Christians today.

Author

Scott Aniol

Executive Vice President and Editor-in-Chief G3 Ministries

Scott Aniol, PhD, is Executive Vice President and Editor-in-Chief of G3 Ministries. In addition to his role with G3, Scott is Professor of Pastoral Theology at Grace Bible Theological Seminary in Conway, Arkansas. He lectures around the world in churches, conferences, colleges, and seminaries, and he has authored several books and dozens of articles. You can find more, including publications and speaking itinerary, at www.scottaniol.com. Scott and his wife, Becky, have four children: Caleb, Kate, Christopher, and Caroline. You can listen to his podcast here.