Nicaea: A Primer
Last week, I wrote about the need for the Nicene Creed in modern evangelical life. Today, I want to dive into the Creed’s text. This will be a brief history lesson with some theological explanation. There are many great sources on this topic, and you may have read some that are much better than this. This is intended to be an introduction. For something with more depth, check out Fred Sander’s books or even his blog.
Why was there a council?
Bishops from all around the Roman Empire met in 325 to discuss the nature of Christ. An influential Presbytery named Arius from Alexandria was teaching that Christ was the savior but was a created being. According to Arius, “there was a time when the Son was not.” So, the discussion that took place at Nicaea had to do with the nature of Christ.
Arius’s theology saw Jesus Christ as more of a demigod than THE one true God. The Emperor Constantine wanted to support Christianity, but didn’t like the church being divided by these arguments. He wanted them all on the same page. Sponsored by the Emperor, they gathered to get this right. While they did get it right, the subsequent history is messy. The Nicene Creed took a lot of defending for years after. The Council of Constantinople in 381 gives us the final form of the text, which saw some additional explanation about the nature of the Holy Spirit.
Why a creed?
One of the earliest Christian documents that we have (aside from the New Testament) is what came to be known as the Apostles’ Creed. This is sometimes referred to as the Old Roman Creed or the Baptismal Creed. The apostles didn’t write it, but it summarizes the gospel story and tries to capture the essence of Jesus’s saving activity. It was typical for converts to learn this before they were baptized and confess it at baptism. Since Christians are baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the Creed is set out in a Trinitarian structure. The recipient of Baptism confessed biblical truth about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
While there is nothing wrong with the Apostles’ Creed, people like Arius could affirm it and continue teaching that Jesus was less than God. It really only speaks of his earthly ministry rather than his existence before birth. The Church sought a way to hold its leaders to a higher theological standard by developing the Nicene Creed. This Creed adds lines to the Apostles’ Creed and strengthens its language.
What does it say about God?
There is only one God. He is affirmed as the almighty creator. The creed begins by calling God “the Father.” Later, it will tell us how he is a Father and how the Son is related to him.
What does it say about the Son?
Now we get to the heart of the matter. (A great Don Henley song, but that is beside the point.) Here is what it says:
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, of one being [substance] with the Father.
Here is the problem. The Bible repeatedly tells us that there is only one God, yet the New Testament frequently speaks of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. More specifically, it speaks of Jesus being the Son of God the Father. How do we best think and talk about this?
The Creed provides Christians with some careful vocabulary to talk about Jesus. He is the only-begotten Son of the eternal Father. This is a biblical phrase from John’s gospel. Begotten is not a word we use much anymore, but it simply means “fathered.” Christians believe that there is something about the Father’s person that makes Him “Father” and something about the Son’s person that makes him “Son. ”Because he is God and does not change, he has always been Father and the Son has always been the Son. More on this in a moment.
The rest of these lines go on to explain what it means for Jesus to be the Son. He is “before all worlds,” and he is begotten rather than made. Contra Arius, Jesus is not a created being, but rather he is simply “from” the Father. He is true God from true God. While Jesus is begotten of the Father, he is begotten eternally. There was no time that Jesus wasn’t. He is truly God who eternally is from the true Father. At the risk of sounding repetitive, he has always been the Son of the one who has always been the Father.
Finally, in the last line of this section, we see the key phrase–”of one substance with the Father.” The Greek word for this that was debated was “homoousios,” meaning same substance, essence, or nature. The Creed here does a little philosophy. We are asked to think about the nature of God. God’s nature is different than mine. It is eternal, mine is temporal. It is spiritual, mine is physical and spiritual. What the Creed says is this: there is a certain “substance” that is God. Whatever that “substance” is, Jesus is the same thing.
These lines, in fact, may be the hardest thing in Christian theology to grasp. How can Jesus be “from” God and be of the same substance? How could the Father, Son, (and Spirit) all be eternal if the Father is said to be the source? My answer is a bit of a non-answer, but it may be the best one out there. If we could understand God, then He wouldn’t be God.
The words “Father” and “Son” are human terms that tell us something about the relationship between the two. They probably don’t do justice to the reality, but these words are how God revealed himself to us. They are the best way humans can understand these mysteries. They are terms that Jesus and the Apostles used repeatedly so we should do the same.
Even so, not everything we know about Father-Son relationships can be read into the Godhead. Since God is Spirit, the first thing that is ruled out is the physical fathering that takes place with humans. Because God is eternal, the next thing that is ruled out is a time when the Son came into existence.
Now that we’ve gotten into the weeds, let’s peek our head up out of the weeds. The point is simpler than I’ve made it so far. Jesus is on the other side of the distinction between God and everything else. Fred Sanders calls it the “Nicene line.” There is a line between these words of the Creed and everything else in existence. The Creed’s description of Jesus starts with all the eternal God stuff that is on one side of the line.
The next line of the Creed introduces creation and then salvation. But before there was a creation and before there were people needing salvation, there was God. Jesus is on the God side of this equation. He is the one doing the creating because “through him all things were made.”
What about Christ’s redemptive mission?
At this point the Creed begins to mirror the Apostles’ Creed yet again. It describes the incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension. It’s not necessary for me to elaborate on these topics, although the ascension deserves more consideration than it typically gets. By ascending to the right hand of the Father Jesus Christ the man assumes the station that the Son of God has occupied from all eternity. Yet now, he works on our behalf as our high priest. There is something profoundly scandalous in how Christ’s ascension brings us into the presence of the Lord of the universe.
What about the Holy Spirit?
As mentioned above, the council of Nicaea was concerned with articulating the nature of Christ. The additions from the Council of Constantinople (381) give us some brief material about God the Holy Spirit and the continued work of His church. It states:
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 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
There are a few important things to point out here. First, the Spirit is the giver of life, which is an attribute of divinity. Additionally, the Creed here hits on one of the important reasons for its existence. The Spirit and Son are worshiped along with the Father.
Nicaea establishes that each person of the trinity can be worshiped without reservation. We don’t have to give greater glory to one than the other. As Philippians 2 teaches us, when we worship the Son, it is to the glory of God the Father. Likewise, when we praise the Spirit, it serves to glorify the name of the Son. Trinitarian worship is not a zero-sum game. It all exalts God who is one.
Lastly, I want to address an important item that many Evangelicals may be scared of. In the Creed, we recognize that the church is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. The word catholic means universal, not Roman Catholic. In fact, I am convinced that a Free Church Protestant ecclesiology (like Baptist) can best account for the idea of catholicity than any other tradition. We can be more catholic than the Catholic Church. The church is diverse and global, but we understand that all those who are made holy in Christ and following the apostles’ teachings are united into one universal church.
This means that African Methodists, Latin American Pentecostals, and American Presbyterians are all part of the “catholic” church. This is a must richer version of catholicity than what you will find in institutional understandings of this terms. One reality of church history is that denominations tend to be rooted just as much in cultural differences than doctrinal ones. Lutherans come from Germany, Orthodox from Greece, Catholics from Ireland, Baptists from Texas. My understanding of catholicity recognizes this reality, whereas the traditional Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic view believes the institutional church to be the only true church.
When will this article ever end?
Hopefully soon. The Nicene Creed gives us rich ways to understand the Trinity. It has served the church for 1700 years and will continue to do so. While it’s not necessary to teach this Creed to second graders, it is something that all teachers in the church should adhere to. It majors on the majors (the Trinity). Christians will continue to have diverse views on many theological topics, but the Creed is a unifying standard.
- Nicaea: A Primer - June 27, 2025
- Give the People Something Timeless - June 13, 2025
- “Taught by God: Ancient Hermeneutics for the Modern Church” – A Review - December 6, 2024
Discover more from Rambling Ever On
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I think we should teach the creed to 2nd graders. 🙂
Very well written, David. And so very helpful. Early creeds should be more taught, or at least talked about and cited in present-day churches. I’ve greatly enjoyed these last couple articles on the Nicene Creed.