Why the Faith of Nicaea prevailed over Arianism

Two statements of Christian faith have been forged from antiquity hoping to explain what it is that Christians are to believe, regarding especially the Person and work of Jesus Christ. The Creed of Nicaea stands as a testament to the apostolic witness of orthodoxy as its adherents had been guided by the Holy Spirit to that point in history, particularly in response to the early Christological controversy known as Arianism. The followers of Arius must have also felt compelled to document what they believed to be the fundamental tenants of the Christian faith, much of which may be found in the Blasphemy of Sirmium. Although the Blasphemy of Sirmium may be viewed as an attempt to overthrow the Nicene formulas there is general agreement from the outset about God the Father and of God’s begetting of the Lord Jesus Christ before time. It is interesting to note that the authors of the Blasphemy recognize that this article of faith in the sovereign Father is what they hold to be true because of its universal acceptance. From here then it is necessarily implied that much of what remains in the Creed of Nicaea is to be rejected in part because, in their opinion, there is not widespread agreement in the catholic Church about what follows in the creed concerning the Person of Jesus Christ. Thus the disagreement begins with Nicaea’s affirmation that Christ is eternally begotten, uncreated and of one substance with the Father. It is evident that Sirmium from the outset misunderstands the terminology implemented by the Creed and misconstrues the composers’ purpose in defining the nature of the Son of God. The argument is made that “two Gods must not be spoken of,” and of course it is clear that the orthodox never intended their formula to be interpreted in such a way as if it were the espousal of bi-theism. However, the Arians use this as an opportunity to attack the use of the term “substance” because of its exclusion from Scripture and thereby argue that any explanation of the relationship of the nature of God to Christ and visa versa should be avoided “because they are beyond the understanding of man.” Thus it may be concluded from such an understanding of the Arians about the progression of theological understanding that they have a minimal understanding at this point of the importance of the guidance of the Holy Spirit at ecumenical church councils. In fact, the Blasphemy itself never mentions the Holy Spirit, while the Creed at least affirms belief “in the Holy Spirit.” They ignore the fact that the Creed of Nicaea stands in direct succession from the apostles through their appointed successors who had been called together for the purpose of defining the substance of the Christian faith more succinctly. The assumption may be made that the Arians believed themselves to have as much a share in that authority in matters of faith as did the orthodox. The move is then made by the composers of Sirmium that “the Father is greater…than the Son.” This argument is made using an interpretation of the words of Christ himself found in John 14:28. However, they ignore the many other texts documenting the words of Christ concerning his relationship to the Father as is found in John 10:30 and John 14:9, which may contradict such an argument made in the Blasphemy. Although the Creed of Nicaea does not include any direct references or quotations from Scripture, they could have easily added quite a few to support the orthodox position. Of course they presumably felt it unnecessary to do so because of their understanding of the apostolic witness of the Spirit and possibly a primitive, yet developing understanding of the importance of Tradition alongside Scripture as an authoritative means for defining the faith. It is interesting to note that another of the arguments utilized by the Blasphemy to persuade its readers of the necessary subjection of the Son to the Father is “that this is catholic doctrine, that there are two persons of the Father and the Son….” A reading of what precedes and follows this statement reveals that Sirmium’s understanding of the term “person” may be equated with two beings whereas orthodoxy today understands this to mean two persons of one divine being or essence. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states in paragraph 255 that “While they are called three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance.” The authors of the Blasphemy of Sirmium are dividing the one nature and substance of God and Christ into two. The Creed of Nicaea moves forward at this point following its affirmations of the Person and work of Jesus to its anathemas of those who do not hold the orthodox faith, who advocate dogmas such as those proposed in Sirmium. Here is where the orthodox attack the heretical who claim that the Son of God was created and had a beginning, is not eternally existent and is not of the same substance or essence as God the Father. The Catholic and Apostolic Church is that entity which they cite as the authority for their decrees. The title “Blasphemy of Sirmium” is the only appropriate title for such a document because it levels itself on almost every point against Nicaea. It is full of errors and contradictions relating especially to the identity of Jesus, and even their understanding of the identity of God. The use of phrases found in the Creed itself by the authors of the Blasphemy towards the end of the document makes no sense at all to the reader because there appears to be a shift in the understanding of the nature of Christ. Early in the Blasphemy the reader is led to believe that Jesus is somehow less than divine, since there is “one God, the Father…,” and “two Gods must not be spoken of….” Then affirmations from the Creed are implemented to express that Jesus is “God from God, light from light…the Son of God our Lord and God….” How then can it be said of Christ that he is both God and not God? With the proposed Arian understanding, or misunderstanding of who Christ is, polytheism or idolatry may be ascribed to such an unorthodox definition. By making Jesus less than God at the outset of the Blasphemy and then calling him God is a prime example of how the “understanding of man” interferes with the apostolic witness of the Spirit. Finally, the last statement given in the Blasphemy of Sirmium is that Christ “took man, by means of which he shared in suffering.” This is of course an orthodox statement concerning Christ’s assumption of a human nature, but it is twisted to conform to an Arian Christology. The Catholic and Apostolic Church has proclaimed throughout its 2,000 year history that Jesus Christ must be fully human as well as fully divine in order for humanity to have been truly redeemed through Christ’s suffering. Thus since the Blasphemy of Sirmium denies that the Son is of the same substance as the Father, then the Son cannot be fully God and has not redeemed fallen humanity because only God could accomplish such a task. This is what happens when orthodoxy, such as that found in the Creed of Nicaea is ignored; Christian theology collapses and is left wanting. This is also the reason why Nicaea was triumphant over heresies like the Blasphemy of Sirmium and so enabled the “faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints” to continue to this day (Jude 1:3, NRSV).