The Arian heresy (and this is going to be subtle, so bear with me) stated that God the Father created God the Son. Orthodox (small "o") Christianity teaches that God the Son is co-existent with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. This means that as long as the Father has existed, which is eternal, the Son and Spirit have likewise existed.
Arius insisted that the Son is a perfect creation, but that at some point in eternity the Father had to create Him.
Nicea said no. The Son is "eternally begotten of the Father". That is, the Son has always existed and had that relationship with the Father. This is why the Nicene Creed is called the Nicene (of Nicea) and contains the statement:
"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* (emphasis mine)."
This is Christianity 101, but that doesn't make it easy to grasp.
It may be helpful to look at the historical implications of Arianism. Many Germanic tribes converted to Arianism, but often for political rather than religious reasons. I don't know enough about it to tell you sources beyond Gregory of Tours' History of the Franks (which is much later than the Council), but I'm sure you can track down the appropriate sources by looking at who the leaders were.
Other folks hit the theological nail on the head (although I usually add to that explanation a shout of "that totally busts up the Trinity!!!" which gets a laugh out of my students). I am a context girl, so I will add a few things that I find interesting.
The Council of Nicaea was called by a secular leader. I think this speaks to the effect that religious controversy had on every day life. It also hints at Constantine's concern over the Christian basket into which he had put all his eggs.
This happened right after Christianity was legalized. Those Christians probably thought things would be smooth sailing after 313, and along comes Arius. And as soon as they worked out the divinity and eternalness of Jesus, someone comes along and says "well...maybe he was not human then..." They just couldn't catch a break. The luxury of not being persecuted went hand in hand with the time and resources to engage in theological controversies.
Comments 10
The Arian heresy (and this is going to be subtle, so bear with me) stated that God the Father created God the Son. Orthodox (small "o") Christianity teaches that God the Son is co-existent with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. This means that as long as the Father has existed, which is eternal, the Son and Spirit have likewise existed.
Arius insisted that the Son is a perfect creation, but that at some point in eternity the Father had to create Him.
Nicea said no. The Son is "eternally begotten of the Father". That is, the Son has always existed and had that relationship with the Father. This is why the Nicene Creed is called the Nicene (of Nicea) and contains the statement:
"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* (emphasis mine)."
This is Christianity 101, but that doesn't make it easy to grasp.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Arius got a big 'ol five fingered sammich in *his* Christmas stocking!
Reply
Reply
Reply
The Council of Nicaea was called by a secular leader. I think this speaks to the effect that religious controversy had on every day life. It also hints at Constantine's concern over the Christian basket into which he had put all his eggs.
This happened right after Christianity was legalized. Those Christians probably thought things would be smooth sailing after 313, and along comes Arius. And as soon as they worked out the divinity and eternalness of Jesus, someone comes along and says "well...maybe he was not human then..." They just couldn't catch a break. The luxury of not being persecuted went hand in hand with the time and resources to engage in theological controversies.
Reply
Leave a comment