Today, just as their God-fearing ancestors had done in centuries past, Christians have and continue to debate many of the ways by which their faith in God and their worship of Him is to be interpreted. There are few, if any, Christians who doubt that God, the One who they worship, is the Omnipotent and Omniscient One. However, it was the senior clergy of the early Christian church in the Roman Empire, which was tasked with answering the question of the relationship to one another of the members of the Holy Trinity. The solution, upon which those church fathers of the fourth century, eventually decided is what has partially prevailed into modern interpretations. It is in some measure due to their disagreement and eventual agreement that most Christians the world over have unified their faith in God, as they recite the Nicene Creed. While no two denominations or sects of the Christian faith agree on church doctrine or interpretations of God's Word, today all Christians agree that Jesus Christ is the Divine One sent to save the damned.
From both an historical point-of-view and that of a religious one, it is paramount to examine and critique this religious piece. While the document itself answered some questions, just as many, if not more, still loom today. In this analysis, an attempt will be made to show the significance of the Nicene Creed and why modern and future historians could use it for their respective studies of the early church and/or the Early Middle Ages.
Originally named the Nicaean Creed, the brief document was authored by Bishop Alexander of Alexandria. Emperor Constantine I had called together the Council of Nicaea in 325, which became the first of the seven Ecumenical councils. They were followed by Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), Chalcedon (451), Constantinople II (553), Constantinople III (680), Nicea II (787). The completed document was rendered in Nicaea, which is in present day Turkey. It was written as a profession of faith and serves as a method by which those who recite it are united, despite their personal Christian beliefs.
Intended for all believers and converts of the Christian church, Emperor Constantine I was forced to decide for the faith Jesus Christ's relationship to the Holy Trinity and whether or not He was completely divine. Constantine wisely tasked the clergy with this responsibility. The early Christians and those they sought to bring into the faith did not doubt who God was. Church historian Brother Gregory Simpson states, "The Supreme Deity was completely above and separate from creation . . ."i If God was so much better, than what troubled many was how an imperfect human being could be descended from God. They also could not fathom how Christ had always been in existence and came to Earth in the form of a baby, growing into an adult male, before His public execution. Father Leo Donald Davis, a Roman Catholic priest, stated, "On one hand, the Adoptionists answered the questions about Jesus by arguing that He was a mere man in whom God dwelt in a special way."ii Several theories abounded, each of which was logical to those who theorized them. Father Davis continued to state, ""On the other, were the Monarchians, a general term for those who stressed the unity of God in such a fashion that they acknowledged the divinity of Christ but denied His distinction from the Father."iii Both the Adoptionists and Monarchians are two groups which predated the Council of Nicaea, but serve as a testament to the far-reaching ideas some had concerning Christ and His relationship to God and the Holy Spirit.
Arius was an Alexandrian priest in the early fourth century, and he serves as one of the reasons why the Council of Nicaea was ordered by Emperor Constantine I. His personal beliefs and teachings did not coincide with the greater whole of the Catholic Church. The Peninsula Bible Church Cupertino in Cupertino, CA lists their beliefs, doctrinal statement, brief early church history, and the Nicene and Apostles' Creed. In their document on the Seven Ecumenical Councils, they address some further issues relating to church doctrine. They were Arianism, the previously mentioned Monarchianism, and Sabellianism. "Arianism: teaching of Arius of Alexandria (d. 335), who believed that Jesus Christ was created ex nihilo (out of nothing) by the Father to be the means of creation and redemption. Jesus was fully human, but not fully divine. He was elevated as a reward for his successful accomplishment of his mission. The Arian rallying cry was 'There was time when the Son was not.' Monarchianism: defended the unity (mono arche, "one source") of God by denying that the Son and the Spirit were separate persons. Sabellianism: a form of monarchianism taught by Sabellias, that God revealed himself in three successive modes, as Father (creator), as Son (redeemer), as Spirit (sustainer). Hence there is only one person in the Godhead."iv Those who believed in Adoptionism, Arianism, Monarchianism, Sabellias, or any other point-of-view, truly believed that they held the correct interpretation of Jesus Christ and His relationship to God and the Holy Spirit.
