Out of this debate in the fourth century comes three trinitarian core beliefs: belief that the three persons of the Trinity are consubstantial, co-equal, and co-eternal. Yet the Father is not the Son or Spirit, the Son is not the Father or Spirit, and the Spirit is not the Father or Son. The “one in three” tension must remain in tact.

The Bible is a book that transcends human intellect. It is a Divine book, yet a revelation of God and by God that He intends his people to understand. We know that there are things in the Bible that are more easily grasped and understood than others. For instance, which of us can wrap our finite minds around the doctrine of the Trinity? It is the nature of the Trinity and the relationship amongst the persons of the Trinity that was a major topic of discussion early on in church history.

The Trinitarian Discussion of the Early Church

In the third century, men like Sabellius held a form of modalism, teaching that there was one God who is known as the Father in the Old Testament, but became the Son in the New Testament, who then later sanctified the church post-Pentecost.1

Modalism teaches that there is only one God, and that this God manifests himself differently at different times. It is a non-trinitarian, and therefore heterodox, view of God. It was rejected in 286 AD at the Council of Antioch, but it still exists today.2

Arianism was also a belief that sprang up in the third century. It was taught by a man named Arius of Alexandria. Arius clashed with Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria, regarding “whether the Word of God was coeternal with God.”3

Arius called into question the eternality of the Son/Word/Logos, teaching that Jesus was not co-eternal with the Father, but instead “the first of all creatures.”4

 Arius affirmed that there was only one God. However, he sought to reconcile the relationship between the Father and Son by giving the Son a slightly different ontology. The “beingness” of the Son and Father and Spirit are all different.

Alexander disagreed with Arius, saying that the Word was Divine, and therefore co-eternal with the Father. Arius believed that Jesus was the first creation which would be the instrument for all the rest of creation. But this essentially created a third ontological category, one that was not co-eternal with the Father, but also different from the rest of creation.5

But if Arius was right, why were people worshipping Jesus? And why should we worship Jesus?

Alexander pronounced Arius’s view as heretical in the early 300s. However, the controversy and debate lingered, with various people within the kingdom taking the view of Arius and others taking the view of Alexander (I acknowledge that I’m oversimplifying the issue for sake of space).

Emperor Constantine decided to step into the discussion, and he called for a council in 325 in the city of Nicaea (modern day Iznik, Turkey), which is what we know today as the Council of Nicaea.

Council of Nicaea

This was the first of the great ecumenical councils, consisting of over 300 delegates from various churches around the Roman Empire, convened as a means of gaining peace and unity within Christianity. Most of the delegates were from the Eastern churches. There were only a few from Rome. It is believed that St. Nicholas was present at this council.

Read More