1700 Years of Nicea

03-03-2025 - Posted by Geert-Jan

An Emperor Who Convened a Council

It was in AD 325, exactly 1700 years ago this year, that the first ecumenical council took place. This was in Nicea, now called Iznik, located in the northwest of Turkey. It was the Roman Emperor Constantine who convened this assembly to achieve consensus within his empire. Only thirteen years earlier (in AD 312), this emperor had converted to Christianity and put an end to the persecution of Christians. As emperor, it was of great importance to him that his empire remained unified. Therefore, he summoned all the key leaders of the church to reach a unanimous judgment on an issue that had become highly contentious within his realm. This dispute was particularly fought between two men, both from Alexandria: Arius and Athanasius. Their disagreement concerned the doctrine of the Trinity, about which more will be discussed later.

The Date of Easter

However, there was another matter that required consensus: the date of Easter. This question arose because the Jewish Passover was no longer accepted. But how, then, should the date be determined? Eventually, it was decided that Easter would be celebrated on the first Sunday after the first full moon following the start of spring. In practice, this means: at the earliest on March 22 and at the latest on April 25. However, it was explicitly added that if this Easter date happened to coincide with the Jewish Passover, the Easter celebration had to be postponed by a week. Consider this: Jesus died “according to the Scriptures” (and precisely on the appointed day!) during Passover, and He rose on the day of the Firstfruits Sheaf. Two high holidays that explicitly fell within the week of the Jewish Passover. In other words, the Easter date as established by Nicea is, by definition, incorrect. Emperor Constantine wrote in a letter about this:

… it would be unworthy to follow the calculations of the Jews in determining the date of the ‘holiest’ of all feasts.

He found it important to:

… have nothing in common with the Jews. We wish to refrain from the despicable association with the Jews, for it is truly disgraceful for us to hear them boast that without their guidance we would not be able to celebrate the feast.

This shows that the intent of the Council of Nicea was driven by anti-Jewish sentiments. The church had taken the place of Israel and also assumed its role. And what to think of an emperor who convenes and presides over a church assembly? The council demonstrates a total merging of church and state. It also shows how far the church had already deviated from “sound doctrine” in the fourth century—exactly as Paul had warned beforehand (1 Tim. 4:1-3; 2 Tim. 4:3).

The Doctrine of the Trinity

By far the most important issue that required consensus was the doctrine of the Trinity. Until the first century, the days of the New Testament, it was abundantly clear that “there is one God, the Father” (1 Cor. 8:6; Eph. 4:6; 1 Tim. 2:5). And Jesus Christ is “the Son of God.”

Certainly, the Son is occasionally identified with God Himself. But does that prove that He is essentially God Himself? No, the explanation provided by the Bible itself is that this is figurative language. After all, the Son is “the image of the invisible God…” (Col. 1:15). No one has ever seen God, but the Son makes Him known (John 1:18). Therefore, whoever sees Him sees the Father (John 14:9). The Son is the Logo and the Icon of the one and unseen God (1 Tim. 1:17). This absolute monotheism is the essence of Biblical confession. As the scribe once confirmed Jesus’ answer:

Indeed, Teacher, You have spoken the truth, for there is one, and there is no other but He.

-Mark 12:32 –

Veiled Polytheism

Hand-in-hand with distancing from everything Jewish came the merging with pagan polytheism. According to Nicea, multiple persons would lay claim to being truly God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The doctrine of the Trinity is the result of this idea.

To prevent this from (rightly!) being labeled as polytheism, it was reassuringly stated that these Divine persons are “one in essence.” But polytheism had already been smuggled in like a Trojan horse. The complex distinction between ‘essence’ and ‘person’ was meant to obscure this, but in vain. The difference between these terms is completely unknown in the Bible. And no one can explain this difference. This is not an accusation, but a widely acknowledged fact. The doctrine of the Trinity is considered by its adherents to be a mystery.

Arius vs. Athanasius

During the Council of Nicea, Athanasius managed to persuade almost the entire assembly to condemn the doctrine of Arius. Arius stated that Jesus Christ is “the Son of God” but refused to call Him ‘God the Son.’ Purely Biblically speaking, Arius (on this point) was, of course, entirely correct. Scripture frequently states that Jesus Christ is “the Son of God,” just as it often speaks of “God the Father.” But nowhere do we read about ‘God the Son.’ This is also logical since Scripture (as we have seen) emphasizes that there is only “one God, the Father.”

Officially Derailed

Especially since the passing of the apostles, Christendom has deviated further and further from Biblical truths. But it was only during the Council of Nicea that these deviations took on an official character. That an emperor led a church was already an ominous sign. But the condemnation of Arius, who refused to endorse an evidently unbiblical term because he held fast to absolute monotheism, is undoubtedly the low point of this assembly.

How Serious Is This?

Since the Council of Nicea in AD 325, the church has formally abandoned the Biblical foundation. Even the Reformation did not change this. To this day, the Nicene Creed serves as the benchmark of orthodoxy. All churches are based on it. Even evangelical believers, who usually care little for confessional writings, endorse ‘Nicea.’ As one of them, Willem Ouweneel, wrote in a column:

The older I get, the more I prefer to call myself as broadly as possible just a ‘Nicene Christian,’ meaning someone who identifies with every Christian who (perhaps with a few details aside) sincerely identifies with the Nicene Creed.

In the Nederlands Dagblad, editor Dick Schinkelshoek wrote:

Besides the Bible, there is no document today that unites so many Christians as the Nicene Creed.

And in the same newspaper, Jos Strengholt wrote:

The power of the Nicene Creed lies precisely in its universality: through all ages and worldwide, it offers the church a confession of faith in the Trinity. This is the essence of being a Christian. Whoever believes this is a Christian. Whoever rejects this places themselves outside the global church and is not a Christian.

This is quite bold, but what Strengholt asserts is exactly what the Athanasian Creed teaches:

1. Whoever wishes to be saved must, above all, hold the catholic faith.
2. Whoever does not keep it whole and undefiled will undoubtedly perish eternally.
3. Now, the catholic faith is this: that we worship one God in Trinity, and the Trinity in unity…

Beyond the Church

What was established at Nicea and taught by Athanasius is very far-reaching, even though today it is not enforced as strictly as it was back then. Even now, 1700 years later, the Nicene Creed remains the benchmark and foundation of what Christians are expected to believe. Anyone who refuses to conform to its “words of human wisdom” is condemned as a heretic—yes, even eternally damned. So be it. It should be clear that there was no place for the message of the Good News at Nicea. And so we stand outside… but in the open space of freedom!

Delen: