What is the Nicene Creed?

The creed that evolved from all this controversy, as far as it goes, is something we may be deeply thankful for. It was indeed a very great deliverance that was given to the church at that time, the benefits of which we are reaping today.

“I believe in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God, Begotten of His Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, Begotten not made, Being of ONE SUBSTANCE WITH the Father; by Whom all things were made, Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made Man.”

In the goodness of God, the Nicene council stood for the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, condemned Arianism, and composed the Nicene creed, embodying the decisions arrived at.

The Nicene Creed

The celebrated confession of faith usually called "The Nicene Creed," was the result of the long and solemn deliberations of the assembly. They decided against the Arian opinions, and firmly maintained the doctrines of the holy Trinity, of the true Godhead of Christ, and of His oneness with the Father in power and glory. Arius himself was brought before the council, and questioned as to his faith and doctrine; he did not hesitate to repeat, as his belief, the false doctrines which had destroyed the peace of the church. The bishops, when he was advancing his blasphemies, with one accord stopped their ears, and cried out that such impious opinions were worthy of anathema together with their author. St. Athanasius, although at the time but a deacon, drew the attention of the whole council by his zeal in defence of the true faith, and by his penetration in unravelling and laying open the artifices of the heretics. But more of the noble Athanasius by-and-by.

Athanasius, then only a deacon, was present to defend the true doctrine of Christ's divinity; Arius himself was present to oppose him. A Creed was drawn up — still known as the Nicene Creed, from the city in which the council was held — declaring the divinity of Christ. Some of the Arians were induced nominally to agree to the creed by altering a word.*

Hitherto the councils of the church had been composed of the bishops and presbyters of a province; but during the reign of Constantine general assemblies were convened, the calling together and dismissal of which were left entirely to the emperor. These were called oecumenical or general councils, and their object was the discussion of the more important questions of the church. The first of such assemblies was held at Nicea in Bithynia, for the examination of one Arius, who had been teaching that our Lord had been created by God like all other beings, liable to sin and error, and that consequently he was not co-eternal with the Father. This is what Constantine, on being informed of the heresy, had called a trifle: the council, with but few dissentients, pronounced it a horrible blasphemy. The bishops so felt the indignity put upon the blessed Lord, that they stopped their ears whilst Arius was engaged in explaining his doctrines, and declared that he who held such doctrines was worthy only of anathema. As a check upon the growth of the heresy the famous confession of faith known as the Nicene Creed was drawn up, in which the scriptural doctrine of the Lord's divinity was clearly and fully enunciated. Arius and his followers at the same time received sentence of banishment, and the possession and circulation of his writings was constituted a capital offence.

But, not only is it an unobjectionable term, and one which has been sanctioned by our greatest divines, as Owen, Goodwin, Bunyan, Gill, etc., but it expresses what could not be so well or so clearly conveyed by any other. Those who so strenuously object to it, may not, perhaps, be altogether aware either of the time of its introduction or of the reason why it was first introduced. It is, then, not only one of those concise and convenient expressions which divines in all ages have employed to communicate scriptural truth in a clear, definite form, but was first used for this very purpose by the ancient Fathers. The necessity for the use of clear and definite terms soon arose in the Christian church; for as errors and heresies sprang up at a very early period as so many tares sown by the enemy of souls among the wheat, men of God felt themselves compelled to meet the subtle wiles of the adversaries of truth by proofs drawn from the Word of God. But besides adducing exact scripture language, it was found necessary, as error assumed a bolder front, to adopt specific terms, in order to define the truth more clearly; for it was soon discovered that erroneous men sheltered their heresies under scripture phraseology, assigning to it all the while a meaning of their own distinct from its true and received, acceptation. When, then, Arius in the fourth century broached his doctrine of the Son’s being generated of the Father before time, but not from all eternity, and that, therefore, there was a period when the Son was not, the ancient Fathers made choice of the term “eternal generation,” to distinguish the proper and eternal filiation of Jesus from His generation in the sense of Arius, who admitted the generation of the Son, but not His eternal generation, and craftily used generation in the sense of making or forming, not begetting. He thus denied that the Son was co-equal, co-eternal and con-substantial of the same substance with the Father. To oppose, then, this fearful heresy, which was, in fact, a denial of the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, and degrading Him to a mere creature, the early Fathers employed the term “eternal generation” to express concisely what is stated more largely in the Nicene Creed, “Begotten of His Father before all worlds,” “begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father”-”begotten before all worlds,” in opposition to the Arian doctrine of a “begetting which was not eternal;” “begotten, not made,” in opposition to the interpretation of begetting as a being made; and “of one substance with the Father” in opposition to the Arian heresy that He was not of the same, but only of similar substance.

Few of the great facts in the history of Christianity since Apostolic days are fraught with a more profound significance than the real nature of the great Arian Heresy. The controversy it raised, the strength it manifested, the influence it secured, and the overwhelming condemnation it earned, have all served to concentrate Christian attention upon the fourth century, and to secure for the life and works of Athanasius the Great the gratitude of all true believers in the Son of God. The victory of the truth in that mighty conflict is witnessed in the Creed of Nicaea. However much open to a certain character of criticism, however much marked by the frailty of human forms of speech, that word under God's hand has been the means of preserving the truth of the Divine Sonship and true Godhead of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ for more than 1600 years. Neither can we recognise as of God any effort that would cast it aside to-day. Just as it embodied the essential truth of Scripture in the day it was framed; so it does now. We change, human opinions come and go; but Divine truth abides, and this ancient creed which protects that truth against human reason and logic is as powerful to-day as ever.

Yet the Lord owns whatever is good. "And thou holdest fast my name, and didst not deny my faith." It is notable, and was no small mercy, that, after the great persecutions, when Christendom and even Christians had been seduced into accepting the patronage of the world, there remained faithfulness in refusing all efforts to deny the deity of Christ. Under the same Constantine, who cast the world's shield over Christianity, was the battle fought and won against the Arian foe. It was under his authority, and indeed by his call, that the famous council sat at Nicaea, and the faith of the Trinity was publicly established. Christians needed no such bulwark, but Christendom did. Thus the creed commonly called Nicene,* which had for its object the assertion of Christ's consubstantial deity, was then published. Is it not fair to believe that this state of things is referred to here? "Even in those days wherein [was] Antipas my faithful witness, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth." What a solemn conjunction, that there should be close proximity to Satan's throne without, yet withal the mercy of God still maintaining the fundamental faith of Christ's own personal glory!

Yet that very creed testifies to the mischief already wrought in making the church a ground of faith, instead of scripture only. For the Nicene Creed asserts, not believing in the church, but believing the church — a very different thing. Faith believes God. The church is not infallible, as it ought to be if to be believed. How true it is that "evil communications corrupt good manners"! People might own the divinity of Christ, yet set up the church in a false position.

Yet the Lord owns whatever is good. "Thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith." It is remarkable that after the greatest persecutions, when Christendom and even Christians had been seduced into accepting the patronage of the world, up to that point there remained real faithfulness in refusing all efforts to deny the deity of Christ. Under the same Constantine, who was the instrument of thus casting the world's shield over Christianity, was the battle fought and won against the Arian foe. It was under his authority, and indeed by his call, that the famous council sat at Nicea, and the faith of the Trinity was publicly established. I do not mean of course for Christians, who needed no such bulwark as this, but for Christendom. Thus the creed commonly called Nicene, which had for its object the assertion of Christ's consubstantial deity, was published at this same time. I cannot but think that this state of things is referred to here: "Thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth." What a solemn conjunction, that there should be this close proximity between Satan's throne without, but withal the mercy of God still maintaining that fundamental faith of Christ's own personal glory!

Arius held that Christ was the first and noblest of all created beings which God had made and thus denied Christ's Godhead and deity. The council of Nice, Bithynia was called in June, 325, by Constantine to consider this grave error. 318 bishops and a large number of priests and deacons were present. Many bore the marks of suffering from the former persecutions. Constantine acted as moderator and the doctrine of the trinity and the true Godhead of Christ was maintained by this council.