Links to further resources

The text of the decisions of Nicea from Schaff's Nicene Fathers in the 19th century, in a text version.

The church historian (not the Greek philosopher!) Socrates on Arianism and the Council of Nicea.

A review of a work on the Arian controversy by Rowan Williams (later archbishop of Canterbury). .

St. Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity.

Documents from the first Council of Constantinople, 381, which confirmed and developed the conclusions of Nicea.

The Council of Nicea helped establish the principle that the Church defines orthodoxy, or at least anathematizes heresy. But what is heresy? Rowan Williams, a theological scholar and former archbishop of Canterbury, discussed that question in 2010.

The Imperial Palace at Nicea

Iznik, Turkey (Nicea) today

The Emperor Constantine had a palace at Nicea, in the Roman province of Bithynia. In 325 he invited bishops of the Church there to discuss several disputed issues, notably the doctrine of Christ, the date of Easter, and the treatment of Christians who had renounced their faith during the persecutions. It was a suitable location, being located near the capital Constantinope but not too near, situated on a lovely lake, and having good weather. The site of the palace is reportedly now under the lake.

Sources for the Council

The Council of Nicea is discussed by three considerable church historians of the following century, Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret; also by Gelasius, bishop of Cyzicus; and by Rufinus of Aquileia (whose history was first published in English in 1997). There are also references to it in the works of Athanasius, who attended as a deacon of Alexandria.

The Arian controversy

Arianism is known primarily through its critics. "Arianism" refers to the theology of Arius, a presbyter of Alexandria, but modern historians disagree exactly what he said. The implication that it was a clear and widespread school of thought is contested. The following traditional summary is offered as a useful way into this history, but many aspects of it are disputed by historians.

Arius was apparently influenced by Origen (d. 254). He was accused of denying the possibility of eternal distinctions within the Godhead, and assigning a subordinate role to Christ as a mediator between God and humanity. The key phrase attributed toArianism was "there was when he [the Logos] was not". Arius thus did not say that Jesus was "mere man" but by this phrase evidently denied his coeternity with the Father and therefore his equality in the Godhead.

The Arian controversy may have broken out in 318 when Arius' bishop, Alexander, rejected the subordination of Christ, quoting from Scripture, "I am in the Father and the Father in me." A council was called in Alexandria which condemned Arius' teaching, and Arius was excommunicated. The controversy did not settle, however, and Constantine's theologiocal adviser, Hosius of Cordova, cautioned the Emperor that the unity of the Christian empire was at risk. Constantine called the bishops together at Nicea. (The Nicea icon here is borrowed from the website of Prof. Jaroslav Skira at Regis College, Toronto.) Constantine took charge. Athanasius of Alexandria presented his bishop's view. Eusebius of Caesarea (the historian) led a middle party. The effort to find a phraseology to condemn Arianism was tricky, since it was necessary to find words that could not also be used by the Arian party againts orthodoxy, but which would exclude the Arian position. The key word was apparently suggested by Hosius, homoousios: the Son was "of the same substance as" the Father. The Catholic and Orthodox position has been thatthis concept establishes a Christ who is worthy of worship and discipleship, and through whom salvation can be definitively offered.

Assessment

The Council of Nicea has been hailed as an example of the discussion and resolution of doctrinal disagreements by the natural leaders of the Church, its bishops. It became a model for future councils of the Church. However, it has also been much criticized. It used language not found in Scripture to define truths which members of the Council thought that they found in Scripture. By bringing the authority of the Emperor into debates about doctrine, by authorizing a small group to anathematize (condemn) those Christians who disagreed with their conclusions, and by bringing the power of the state to enforce their views, the Council politicized Christian decision-making. Moreover, the Council didn't actually settle the issue of Arianism. Subsequent emperors retreated from Nicea until Theodosius called a second council (at Constantinople) in 381 to reaffirm it.

To this day the Council's definition is controversial. Robert Wright of General Theological Seminary summarizes three general positions that Christians have taken in relation to it:

• Reject it as post-Scriptural and non-Scriptural. Jesus taught no explicit christology. The Church does not have the authority to bind the Christian conscience with doctrines and language that go beyond Scripture.
• Accept it as is, recognizing that Christianity might well have died out if the conciliar theologians had refused to express the Christian faith in the dominant Platonist thought-forms of the day, and affirming that the New Testament does describe Jesus as the pre-existent, only-begotten Son of God, through whom all things were created.
• Accept it as valid for its own day, but not necessarily now. Maurice Wiles, an Anglican theologian at Oxford, argued for this in The Re-Making of Christian Doctrine, and he has many followers. The Council's terms of reference are no longer ours; we need to turn to the insights of modern thought to express the faith, just as the Nicene theologians felt free to do.

Other decisions

The bishops also sought to unify the diverse practices for determining the date of Easter. It seemed fitting that all Christians should celebrate Easter on the same day. They maintained the general principle of dating Easter according to the phases of the moon, just as Judaism dates Passover according to its lunar calendar. However, although Passover can fall on any day of the week, the members of the Council wanted Easter always to fall on the Lord's Day, The result was the following declaration:

• Easter must be celebrated on a Sunday;
• this Sunday must follow the fourteenth day of the paschal moon;
• the paschal moon is the moon whose fourteenth day follows the spring equinox;
• the required astronomical calculations should come under some single authority, probably the archbishop of Alexandria.

The bishops also promulgated a number of disciplinary canons or rules, particularly to standardize some organizational and liturgical practices, and to deal with divisions and schisms in the wake of the recent persecutions.