From “Jesus is Lord” to the Nicene Creed: Why Church History and Theology Help Us Know God

One way we are able to ‘get more’ of God in our faith and practice is by understanding church history and theology. The church in the twenty-first century stands on the shoulders of the previous twenty centuries. The articulation of orthodox theology had to be learned and developed – a process that took centuries. As we take ourselves back to the world and development of the early church, we learn how to cherish the theological truths we embrace as well as the God behind them. 

The church in the first century believed the apostolic confession that “Jesus is Lord” (Rom. 10:9). The task of the church in the second through fifth centuries was to explain what it means for Jesus to be Lord and how He is Lord. Along the way, it became evident that precise language was absolutely essential for explaining the mysteries of the apostolic confession rightly. 

The church realized any articulation must cohere with the full revelation in the Scriptures. Thus, embedded within the apostolic confession that “Jesus is Lord” (Rom. 10:9) are the truths that He is both “according to the flesh” (Rom. 1:3) and “according to the Spirit” (1Pet. 1:11). Fourth century theologians, bishops, and deacons attempted to articulate how Christ the Son could be both flesh and Spirit, and it produced the most volatile exchange the church had yet seen.

The showdown began in Alexandria, Egypt between a presbyter and his bishop known as the Arian Controversy.

Precursor to Nicaea: The Arian Controversy

Arius’ Thesis

The Arian controversy began in 318, when the presbyter from Alexandria named Arius started teaching that the Son did not share the same essence as the Father. Arius considered the uniqueness and transcendence of God to be the ontological foundation of God. He said God is “alone ingenerate, alone eternal, alone without beginning… the being or essence of the Godhead cannot be shared or communicated” lest God’s unique essence be divisible; consequently, he continues, “if any other being were to participate in the divine nature in any valid sense, there would result a duality of divine beings… therefore whatever else exists must have come into existence… by an act of creation on His [the Father] part.”¹ J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (New York: Harper One, 1978), 227.

Arius’ Mistake

Arius did speak some truth. God is unique and transcendent; only God is ingenerate; all created things are not God. Arius’ mistake was to assume a plurality of divine persons requires a plurality of beings. Thus, Arius was forced to interpret the Son’s begotten-ness as generated not from the Father’s essence but created as a perfect creature who owes His entire being to the will of the Father.² Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 227–28. Arius’ claim that the Son is a creature means it is impossible for the Son to be coeternal with the Father. His most famous saying that became the slogan for Arianism was “there was when He [the Son] was not.”³ The awkwardness of this phrase is because Arius contended that the Son was the Father’s first creation, before all other things – including time. Thus, Arius claimed the Son is the most exalted among created things, and His primacy within the created order allowed the Father to create everything else through Him. See Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 226–28, quote on p.228.This renders the Son hierarchically beneath the Father and therefore utterly incapable of ever being divine in the same way as the Father.

Arius Confronted

Arius was confronted by his bishop, Alexander, but tensions escalated because both sides saw the controversy as affecting salvation. Alexander said Christ’s divinity allowed for efficacious salvation for humanity. Arius, on the other hand, argued it was Christ’s obedience as humanity’s representative that brought salvation to humanity.⁴ Justo L. González, The Story of Christianity, vol. 1, The Early Church to the Reformation, rev. ed. (New York: Harper One, 2010), 184–85. The matter was not resolved until the first ecumenical council convened at Nicaea in 325, organized by emperor Constantine.

The Council of Nicaea Rules Against Arius

The council ultimately condemned Arius as heretical. The council also wrote a precise creed that articulated both the apostolic tradition of Trinitarian belief as well as how those beliefs are true. Anyone who refused to sign in agreement to the creed was declared a heretic and deposed from his position in the church.⁵ González, The Story of Christianity, 189–90; S. Parvis, “Arianism,” in New Dictionary of Theology: Historical and Systematic, ed. Martin Davie et al. (London; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press; InterVarsity Press, 2016), 58–60.

Athanasius and his Theology

The Arian controversy did not die out after the Council of Nicaea and the Nicene Creed. It continued to dived the church and the Roman empire after 325. The most significant figure in this debate throughout the fourth century was Saint Athanasius.

Athanasius the Person

Saint Athanasius was a leader in the church at Alexandria, Egypt in the fourth century. He served as a deacon and eventually became the bishop of Alexandria.⁶ As a deacon, Athanasius would have held a lower rank within the church than Arius (a presbyter) and Alexander (a bishop). His major theological contribution was his work On The Incarnation where he articulated the mystery of Christ’s humanity and divinity and how both natures are necessary for efficacious salvation.

As a deacon, accompanied his bishop, Alexander, to the Council of Nicaea in 325 where he showed great intellectual and theological aptitude by defending the deity of Christ against the Arian party.⁷ Philip Schaff and David Schley Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 3 (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910), 886. After the council, he went on to be the strongest advocate for the Nicene Creed throughout the fourth century, which earned him the title “the father of orthodoxy.⁸ Philip Schaff and David S. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 886.Due to the theological and political turmoil of the fourth century, St. Athanasius was exiled five times from Alexandria.

The Theological Debate of Athanasius’ Day

The primary theological debate of St. Athanasius’ lifetime was the Son/Logos’ relation to the Father. This began as a discussion in the second century church and escalated to the drastic debates of the Arian Controversy in the third century. The following question lies at the heart of the debate: Is the Son “of the same substance” (Greek: homoousios) as the Father, or is He “of a similar substance” (Greek: homoiousios) to the Father?

If the Son is of a similar substance, then He is not “true God of true God” as the Nicene Creed states. Furthermore, this means the Son was created by the Father and then became the agent through whom the Father created everything else – this is what the presbyter Arius taught. Conversely, if the Son is of the same substance as the Father, then He is equally divine in every way as the Father and is not dependent upon the Father for His existence.

This is dense theology, and it would be easy for someone today to assume it is a silly game of semantics. However, St. Athanasius argues (incredibly well, might I add) that the difference between homoousios and homoiousios is the difference between Christ’s atonement being efficacious in reality vs. efficacious in theory.

How Does Athanasius Connect Christology with Salvation?

Athanasius connects Christology with Salvation in a few ways.

First, he makes the logical connection that it makes sense for God to redeem/recreate through the same One through Whom He created the first time.⁹Athanasius, On the Incarnation.

Second, he argues that salvation hinges on Christology through the story of creation, temptation, fall, corruption, and God’s law against transgression.¹⁰ Athanasius, On the Incarnation, 5–6. He famously said humanity was created “to live a life according to God,” but “by the counsel of the devil turning towards things of corruption were themselves the cause of corruption in death… when this happened, human beings died and corruption thenceforth prevailed, becoming even stronger than its natural power over the whole race.” (On the Incarnation, 5).¹¹ St Athanasius the Great of Alexandria, On the Incarnation: Translation, ed. and trans. John Behr, vol. 44a, Popular Patristics Series (Yonkers, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2011), 61–63. Thus, humanity entered into a state of corruption, which God could not overlook and remain true to Himself.

Salvation, therefore, must be brought about by one who absorbs the corruption of humanity within His own human body but is simultaneously sustained by incorruptible life. Only in this way could humanity be liberated from the clenching power of the devil.¹² Athanasius, On the Incarnation, 9–10.

The Nicene Creed and Salvation

This brings significance to the Nicene Creed (see below) because it evidences that the crux of the Arian debate was not about the semantics of including or dropping a iota (homoousios / homoiousios) but about the reality of salvation itself. A creature lacks the incorruptibility of God (especially through death). If Christ is a creature, no matter how high, then he is not able to sustain incorruptibility through death for the salvation of humanity. If incorruptible life was not sustained through death, then life was not victorious over death. If life was not victorious over death, then humanity cannot be victorious over death. If humanity cannot be victorious over death, then we are not saved.

What Should the Modern Church Remember About Athanasius’ Theology / Argument?

Athanasius’ reasoning about the demonic influence over humanity is particularly vital for today’s church. Yes, humanity is guilty of rebelling against God. However, humans are also prey to the demonic forces. Salvation saves us from the crippling power of demonic influence for a new life of good works in Christ (cf. Eph. 2:1–10). On the flip side, this also allows us to view the unsaved with compassion because they remain the prey of the demonic forces.

Additionally, Athanasius reminds us that God is both knowable and mysterious. We can truly know God because He has revealed Himself to us. This allows us to know who He truly is and what He’s truly like. At the same time, our knowledge of God has a ceiling of mystery. We cannot know God as He knows Himself, just as a baby cannot know her parents as they know themselves. We know God, just as a baby knows her parents, but our knowledge of Him always ends in mystery. Our knowledge of Him cannot be so complete that it eliminates all mystery. This is a wonderful thing because it means we will never cease to be amazed at God and to gaze upon Him in wonder.

Finally, Athanasius reminds us that true doctrine – that which truly brings us before the mysteries of God – is not our default assumption. We have to work at theology. We have to be patient in theology. And we have to allow the Holy Spirit to testify to us when we do theology. God is bigger than any one single truth. Yes, God is sovereign, He is one, and everything that is not God is categorically distinct from Him. But that truth does not eliminate the plurality of persons within God.

Jesus Christ is Lord, both “according to the flesh” and “according to the spirit.” Athanasius reminds us that we have to embrace that truth with both humility and zeal.

The Nicene Creed

Below is the text of the Nicene Creed as drafted and signed at the Council of Nicaea in 325. The Creed was revised at the Council of Constantinople in 381. That version is called the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, and it is the version we use today.

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, 
Maker of all things visible, and invisible."

“And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, 
begotten of the Father [the only-begotten, i.e., of the essence of the Father, God of God, and] 
Light of Light, very God of very God, 
begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; 
by whom all things were made [in heaven and on earth]; 
who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; 
he suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; 
from thence he cometh to judge the quick and the dead.

“And in the Holy Ghost."

[“And those who say: there was a time when he was not; and: he was not before he was made; and: he was made out of nothing, or out of another substance or thing, or the Son of God is created, or changeable, or alterable; they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.”]13 Philip Schaff and David S. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 668–69.