[Church History] Discussion post: "The impact that the Christological and Trinitarian debates from Nicaea I (325) to Chalcedon (451) still have on churches today?" (49/50 mark received, 7/03/25)

Council of Nicaea (325) convened by emperor Constantine

First, as it is always the case when studying Scripture, the believers and the non-believers alike are advised to approach its study with open mind, ample humility and an earnest prayer that the Holy Spirit will guide them in the process. And God who is gracious, merciful and magnanimous will grant them wisdom and discernment needed to gain (new) knowledge and information which will be beneficial for their living on earth. With that being said, let’s look at the topic at hand.

            The Christology may not be so a new concept after all to the people living post the cross at Calvary, the New Testament era that is, which was systematically and conceptually well-organized at the councils of bishops at Nicaea and Chalcedon leading to the lasting and profound influence which it created on the whole Christendom thereafter. If one goes back to several key passages in the Old Testament and try to find the traces where Christ-like entity might have appeared in flesh to human kind, theophany events, then there are several places one can be pointed to: 1) the apparent Creator God-like figure walking in the Garden of Eden in the cool of day in apparent physical form to fallen Adam, Eve and the old serpent to pronounce their respective sentences for the transgressions each committed (Gen. 3); 2) God-like figure being accompanied by a company of two angels appearing to Abraham and Sarah before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18); 3) God-like figure wrestling with Jacob all night long until dawn at Jabbok river (Gen. 32 ); 4) God-like figure appearing to parents of Samson to announce his birth and consuming their offered sacrifice with fire as ascend to heaven (Judges 13); 5) God-like (“Son of Man”) figure appearing in Daniel’s night visions and in company of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in the furnace of fire (Daniel 3). The point: God (“YHWH”,  the only sacred name of God in the OT) can appear in flesh form, just like other spiritual beings, angels for example, could have. These series of theophany events, the appearance of the pre-incarnate Jesus as it appears to have been, are rightfully and orthodoxically classified all under a proper domain of what is called the Norma Normans, the scriptures itself, the ultimate source of the authoritative and truthful words of God, the Bible.

            On the other hand, the Trinitarian concept is one of those  doctrines which falls under the category called the “norma normata”, a group of the secondary or derived theological concepts or doctrines from the primary sources, Norma Normans, the Bible itself, or even from other secondary sources, which can be interpreted rather differently according to the different factions of or even within the individual Christian denominations. And this author does not possess enough knowledge nor trained extensively enough remaining ignorant overall in that discipline to present any conclusive definition on this matter, rather than to cautiously offer the unbiased 3^rd party observations as it appears; however, the Trinitarian doctrine is deemed inscrutable and mysterious even by those with extensive theological training, with some of them having reached the world class/renown academic reputation and expertise. Important thing is that they all universally confess the same Christian faith in One God, that is the Almighty Creator God from the Bible. 

            Per the Dr. McAlhaney’s lecture video, the following results followed after the gathering and the dismissal of the councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon with far-reaching effects on the whole Christendom afterwards: “(1) Eastern church  became divided among themselves as some fully adhered to Nicaean faith (“homoousios”), but some didn’t (“non-Homoousios”); (2) The Western church committed to Nicaean theology for their theological formation and pastoral decisions; (3) Followers of Arius began accepting Homoousios , but rejected the divinity of the Holy Spirit.

What Athanasius of Alexandria did was by writing a letter to Serapion of Thmuis, a non-believer in the divinity of the Holy Spirit, to elucidate the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, presenting the Holy Spirit as a fully divine (third) member of the Godheads of the Trinity. This was upheld confirmed by the Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, and Basil the Great at the council of Chalcedon.” (McAlhaney Week #2 Video Lecture).

             As Noll, D. Komline and H-L Komline wrote, “The doctrinal issue at Nicaea was absolutely critical because it centered not only on who Jesus was in his person but also who Jesus was in his work as Savior.” (Noll, p. 33). It is imperative to insert “the key assertions” from the council here now: “1. Christ was true God from true God; 2. Christ was consubstantial [of one substance] with the Father; 3. Christ was begotten, not made; 4. Christ became human for us humans and for our salvation.” (Noll, Komline & Komline, pp. 37-38). In essence according to the authors, the council at Nicaea produced non-unilateral results due to the complex nature of state politics and faith intertwined in the power struggle for supremacy as in “Nicaea bequeathed a dual legacy—of sharpened fidelity to the great saving truths of revelation, and also of increasing intermingling of church and world.” (Noll, Komline & Komline, p. 43). Dr. McAlhaney video lecture demonstrated this divide clearly just to mind you.

            Per the authors, the council of Chalcedon in which no less than 520 bishops participated per the <Turning Points>, was a “threefold triumphant” plus one; “a  triumph  of sound doctrine over error in the church, a triumph of Christian catholicity over cultural fragmentation, and a triumph of theological discernment over the anti-intellectual dismissal of philosophy, on the one hand, and over a theological capitulation to philosophy, on the other.” (Noll, Komline & Komline, p. 48). Chalcedon also addressed one very IMPORTANT ISSUSE, which was the dual nature of Christ, being both fully divine and fully human (Vs. the challenging heretical extreme doctrine of Alexandrian school in full humanity of Christ), which left a lasting enduring sound orthodoxy interpretation for ages to come. The authors wrote, “Chalcedon’s insistence on both the integrity of Christ’s person and the duality of his natures established a tremendously important guide for Christian life in the world. By extension, the definition demands both serious attention to worldly  existence (the Antiochene stress on the full humanity of Christ) and a full spirituality as believers enter the world (the Alexandrian stress on the integrity of Christ’s person). The genius of Chalcedon was to draw these perspectives together and to insist that neither tendency outweighs the other.” (Noll, Komline & Komline, p. 62). The biblical references supporting the stance the Council at Chalcedon firmly took can be found in multiple passages in both the Old Testament and New Testament books (cf. Gen. 3:15; Isaiah 7:14; John 1:1-5; John 1:14; John 4:6, etc.)

          In closing, the two towering and landmarking events in the history of  Christianity, the councils at Nicaea and at Chalcedon, answered the call of the times in need of biblical and theological clarity and sound teaching facing critical issues such as countering heresies in the Arianism, etc., and unifying the Christendom at large under orthodox words given, which is the Bible itself. By and large looking back at the past 1,600 plus years of history of Christianity since the formation of the two councils, the erudite bishops more or less had done a remarkable job of having given the foundational Creed(s) by which the faithful followers of Lord Jesus can rally around in times of countering the new forms of heresies or internal or external doctrinal threats which can be harmful to the whole Protestant faith. Even though the London Confession of Faith, etc., came about much later, ultimately Nicaea and Chalcedon set an exemplary template as a precedent so that it obviated the need for calling of another Nicaea or Chalcedon. 

[References]

Timothy McAlhaney, the Video Lecture for the Module Week #2, What Happened after the Council of Nicaea?, Liberty University Online School, Lynchburg, VA.

Mark A. Noll, Turning Points: Decisive Moments in the History of Christianity, Third Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012).

Council of Chalcedon (451) convened by emperor Marcian

**My reply to someone named Jurell's post:

Hi Jurell, thanks for your well-written and -researched post as it was a pleasure for me to read it. I’d just like to touch upon one thing, the homoousios of Jesus Christ in relation to the Father—what does it really mean and how we should interpret and accept/reject in some cases as a follower of JC—all in my own words as I understand it based both on my own personal journey in faith thus far and what I have learned from other external sources.

Well, no other than Jesus Himself tried in earnest and sincerity to tell His disciples, followers and even those who opposed Him exactly that, which is “He and the Father in heaven are one (cf. John 6:35, “I AM bread of life”; John 8:12, “I AM the light of the world; John 10:7: “I AM the door”; John 10:11, “I AM the good shepherd”; John 11:25, “I AM the resurrection and the life”; John 14:6, “I AM the way, the truthy and the life”; John 15:1, “I AM the true vine.” ); let’s listen to what Jesus said about Himself:  “  1^st century monotheistic Jews knew exactly what Jesus meant to tell them, and that is exactly why some of them became very angry, grievous, and even tore their garment, accusing Jesus of being blasphemous, since in their blind eyes, Jesus appeared to be merely human just like the rest of them. And tried to stone him to death in certain situations.

Jesus admitted that 1) the Father is greater than the Son; 2) the Son was sent by the Father; 3) the Son is merely doing what the Father is allowing the Son to do. However, these elements reflect  the Jesus in human form in my humble opinion. And the Son prayed to the Father in heaven too as he ought to. He became our role model in doing all those acts of obedience in fulfilling every single scripture written about him without committing a single sin. The first fruit of resurrection, which the believers would experience when passing from the temporal world to eternity.

I don’t quite possess enough neurons, especially these days, to exactly figure out what these all means. Homoousis with the Father? Just as the Father is able to be whatever He will be (“I AM THAT I AM”), it seems the same for the Son except for the fact that now he’d have to get in perfect sync with the Father. If that means Homoousis with the Father, absolutely a resounding YES from me. Purely due to his human nature since he had to be since he had a messianic mission to carry out in human form to be a Savior for the biologically born human sinners and to give those eternal life, who would accept him as their personal savior and lord. Noll et al wrote, “Christ was consubstantial [of one substance] with Father…In the end homoousios won out because it reinforced as unequivocally as possible the fact that Christ was truly “very God of very God.” (Noll, pp. 37-38). Very God of Very God—what does it mean? It is reminiscent of a tile of Jesus: The King of kings and the lord of lords, whose name is above all names.

In my human understanding and limited mind of reasoning, the latter half statement takes me to other old Hebrew titles of YHWH God in variant forms, particularly “Elohim” of which I am sure that you’ve heard of before. As we all know, “Elohim” is a plural noun yet the author of the Penteteuch, Moses in most likelihood, elected to use it in passages where he felt like the passage dictated  YHWH God was more than just God (in comparison to all the fake carved idols which surrounded the ancient Israelites from which their progenitor Abram was separated out and given a covenant of the Promised) per some commentaries I read recently. Hence, the Creator God is Elohim wielding such astounding supernatural power in multiple enhanced powers, unthinkable by any dead graven images of the Canaanites.

All in all, the Nicene Creed did its intended job in some roundabout twisted way in my opinion  having served as a glue which held all the main parts of the Christendom together  in their  rightful places by and large as Noll wrote, “The Nicene Creed has remained for nearly seventeen centuries a secure foundation for the church’s theology, worship, and prayer. Not only does it succinctly summarize the facts of biblical revelation, but it also stands as bulwark against the persistent human tendency to prefer logical deductions concerning what God must be like and how he must act to the lived realities of God’s self-disclosures.” (Noll, p. 39). Amen, I mean a triple Amen to that: yes, let’s just adhere to what God says about himself found in the Norma Normans, the Bible itself (or through direct messages handed over to his messengers at times in visions). And God forbid that should anyone dare present the fabricated falsified image(s) of God via some concocted artificial secondary, tertiary sources, etc. If we just keep his commandments, the problems stay away—mostly.

[Sources]

Noll, Mark A. Turning Points: Decisive Moments in the History of Christianity. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2022. **

**My reply to someone named Martha's post:

Hi Martha, I read your post with delight and interest. Thank you; I’d just like to say a few things which grabbed my attention on the councils, particularly regarding Arius/Arianism and the Holy Spirit if I may:

History is written by the victors, they say, and what I mean is that on one hand the admirers of the emperor in general might have portrayed the calling of the council at Nicaea as an act of  Constantine’s pure love for the coherency and orthodoxy of the doctrines surrounding the person of Christ in carrying the banner for the whole Christendom against the dangers of present and imminent danger which the heresies presented. However, it is apparent that his motives were multi-folded as revealed by Noll and Dr. McAlhaney’s video lecture. In the end, God made it all work as the Providence is the engine which turns the wheels of the history according to the grand salvific plan laid out by Him alone (cf. “The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the Lord; he turns it wherever he will. Every way of a man is right in his own eyes, but the LORD weighs the heart.”—Proverbs 20:1-2 English Standard Version.)

Here is what Arius said about Jesus: “The one without beginning established of him who was born in the order of time. The one without beginning established the Son as the beginning of all creatures, And, having fathered such a one, he bore him as a son for himself. He [the Son] possesses nothing proper to God, in the real sense of propriety, For he is not equal to God, nor yet is he of the same substance.” (Noll, p. 35).

I believe that the seven “I AM” statements Jesus made about himself in the Gospel of John invoking a statement YHWH God made to Moses in burning bush when Moses asked Him about his name, “I AM That I AM.” should directly prove how false Arius’ views of Jesus was. “I Am That I AM” means that “I am self-existent The Almighty God.” As we all know and understand. Jesus made very definitive and clear statements about himself as if to say, “Hey, listen people; this is who I truly am.”, and he made it known that his origin was ETERNAL.

Saying is one thing but proving is yet another: surely, while in flesh as the incarnate Son of God, Jesus obviously had some limitations just like any human would have, e.g., feeling fatigued, sleepy, hungry, et al (Matthew 8:23-27; John 4:6), and even being killed on the cross, which he had to in order to be the Lamb of God as a ransom for many. However, through numerous astounding supernatural divine miracles, healings of all kinds of illnesses, exorcism of the evil spirits, and the resurrection on the third day and eventual ascent into heaven, he more than proved His Divinity and fulfilled his messianic missions as a Redeemer of the world beyond any reasonable doubt. You know, only God can save.

I don’t think that it is just my opinion when I say that the Jesus post-Resurrection back in his glorified transfigured pre-incarnate spiritual form, should be the Omniscient Almighty God himself just like in the eternity past like he’s always been before he came in flesh to be Immanuel. Advocating for Jesus’ “Immanuel-ness” being fully divine yet fully human was a huge accomplishment made by Chalcedon as Null wrote, “By expressing these kinds of insights on Christ’s two natures in a formula, Chalcedon preserved space for further thought on the person of Christ. At the same time, it offered reassurance for the great work of salvation that this “one and only Son” performed.” (Noll, p,60). It was a bridge which we are glad that didn’t burn since it synchronized the core messages of the Gospels and made all the prophecies and messianic narratives perfectly sensible and believable without any holes in their logic.

The Holy Spirit: Not only am I of the opinion that the Holy Spirit is fully divine, but I also happen to believe the works of the HS are still ACTIVE: they have continued on to this day without any breakage/secession contrary to what some groups/individuals might believe. I have witnessed and experienced with my own eyes to believe otherwise! Besides, if one carefully observes what has happened and is still going on in the third world countries, the places not as affluent (sometimes downright impoverished) as the West and hence under much less secular materialistic cultural ideological influences and the mission fields around the world in particular, that will become very obvious.

In closing, take a look around us. Now we are living in an age where human workforce is being eliminated gradually but surely and being replaced by AIs since artificial intelligence is deemed superior to that of human it seemingly yields more efficiency in the output of work. Intelligence or knowledge is not what endeared to God Almighty in first place so that He sent His only begotten son that anyone whosoever believed in him would not perish but receive eternal life; faith, precisely, as the Bible tell us. We are created in His own image, all three dimensions of a human compositions bear that fact out--our soul, body and the spirit.

[Sources]

Mark A. Noll, Turning Points: Decisive Moments in the History of Christianity, Third Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012).**