The Five Influential Councils
Say what you want about Constantine and the conversion of the Roman Empire to a form of Christianity, but one thing we should be grateful for is the May 20, 325 Council of Nicaea. This was the first of five Ecumenical councils that involved bishops from all over the Roman Empire. Each council was assembled to help provide greater clarity on the biblical approach to the person and nature of Christ. Now that was not the only reason each council met, but it was a significant one.
As decades went by following a council’s decision, new and heretical views concerning the nature(s) of Christ arose. A distinct pattern developed as a bishop in a particular portion of the empire would begin to teach/preach a contrary identification of Christ’s nature. This would generally insight concerns from other local bishops or even a regional bishop. Eventually, when the issue escalated, a higher bishop or even the Emperor would call a council to make a determination concerning the new thought. Generally speaking, the council would hear varying sides and then pronounce a decision, deeming one individual heretical and therefore his teachings banished.
Council of Nicaea – 325 – 300 Bishops came to Nicaea at the request of Constantine. The council was called for a variety of reasons, but the crux of the matter was the new teaching by a man named Arius. Arius was a presbyter in Alexandria, Egypt. He was educated in Antioch, but looked to expand Origin’s teachings. To his credit, Origin sought to reconcile the co-eternal yet begotten person of Christ. Arius took the conflicting statements of Origin and put forward the full thought of Jesus’ subordinate nature to the Father. He taught, “there was a time, when the Son was not.” Jesus was different than common humanity, but He was not co-eternal with the Father. Therefore, Jesus was subordinate in function and essence. This created a problem for Alexander, the bishop in Alexandria, and a disagreement ensued. The problem escalated to higher bishops and eventually to Constantine. Constantine’s motive for calling the council could be debated, but he called it nonetheless. As a result of the council, Arianism was rejected and the Nicene Creed began. The original form is quite scant, but it met the immediate issue head on. Athanasius, a deacon in Alexander’s church is given credit for writing the Nicene Creed. While Arianism would continue to raise its head over the centuries, the Nicene Creed was birthed, and a movement toward a creedal statement surveying the biblical doctrine of the church was in play. Also, the standard for future councils took shape.
Council of Constantinople – 381 – This was an Eastern controversy concerning the humanity of Christ. This council was called by Emperor Theodosius to wage a decision concerning the new teaching of Apollinarius. Apollinarius was a presbyter in Laodicea, and he was an opponent to Arianism. He taught that the union of the two natures emphasized the divinity of Christ at the expense of His full manhood. In the incarnation, the “Divine Logos” displaced the human soul of Jesus; therefore, Jesus was essentially only physically human. Jesus did not have a human mind or soul. A man by the name of Gregory of Nazianus, Archbishop of Constantinople, began to use the argument of the earthly mother of Jesus to show His full humanity. The bishop of Rome condemned the teachings of Apollinarius, and the full council agreed to expand the Nicene Creed. Jesus’ humanity was protected. The first council questioned the substance of Jesus; now in question was the division between the natures.
Council of Ephesus – 431 – This was another Eastern controversy discussing whether Jesus’ two natures were separate. Was His humanity separate from His divine nature? Before we fly off the handle at these early patristic men, we must remember the lack of resources that existed in their day. We have the luxury of studying centuries of brilliant God-ordained theologians who gave clarity and direction to these doctrines. The counter man who came to the forefront this time was Nestorius. He was a presbyter in Antioch, and he rejected the direction of Gregory Nazianus in the use of Mary in the discussion of Jesus’ nature. He wanted to completely separate the two natures of Christ. He would argue that the divine could not have been involved in the basic things of life like birth and sufferings, therefore no essential union between the natures existed. Cyril of Alexandria and Celestine of Rome were two prominent men at this council. Eventually Nestorianism was condemned, and the council decided that unity existed between the two natures of Christ. Nestorius was deposed to Persia where he founded the Nestorian church.
“Robbers” Council – 449 – This council held in Ephesus was centered on the issue of Christ possessing one nature or two. A monk from Constantinople began promoting that Jesus only had one nature. The divinity and humanity of Jesus converged to form one new unique nature. That monk’s name was Eutychius, and the council exonerated him without the presence of the bishop of Rome, Leo I. A year before, in 448, Eutychius was denounced at a synod in Constantinople. This later became known to birth a group called monophysites, or the denial of the duality to Christ’s natures.
Council of Chalcedon – 451 – This is the fifth and final major church council in the patristic era. The council was held May 23, 451 and was summoned by Emperor Marcian. It took place in Chalcedon, which was located just across from Constantinople. This council features 520 bishops, mostly from the eastern portion of the empire, but some from North Africa and Rome also came. As a result of Leo I’s denial of the validity of the council of 449, this council put forward and affirmed the reality yet mystery of the two co-existing natures of Jesus. There were those who would not accept this decision, and they became known as the monophysites, mentioned above. They eventually made their way to Egypt and Ethiopia and portions of Syria.
Anyone could sit and show disdain for the church councils. You might even think you have a biblical exegetical rationale for deposing them. However, I think on the contrary. I see Constantine as God’s instrument to bring about a united front to attack and denounce heretical teachings throughout the first centuries. I also see the Jerusalem council as the blueprint for said councils, and am thankful that they happened. With the councils we see the preservation of sound biblical doctrine concerning the person and nature of Christ. We have the unique privilege to look back and see the mighty hand of God direct and fulfill His ordained purposes!
Excellent post, Andy. I am a student of those early councils and I believe (excluding the Robber Synod, of course) that they were coming to the correct conclusions. I wish more Evangelicals would pay attention to them, because we would have less nonsense in our understanding of the Trinity and Jesus if we did.
P.S. the 5th and 6th councils were important too.
Jim G.
Jim,
For sure they were, but for the sake of space and brevity I focused on these. I too think we could learn a thing or two from them. I also want to emphasize that it all begins with Constantine’s Christianization of the Empire and the Emperor having some authority with the church.
The work of Constantine was a double-edged sword. No doubt his edicts allowed the enormous freedom of thought, travel, and assembly for the bishops to hold these ecumenical councils. Meetings on such a scale simply would not have been possible in the times of persecution. But, at the same time, the forcing of “Christianity” upon a pagan culture contributed to things like monasticism, a lack of real conversions, and other sorts of problems.
I think that the same decisions on doctrine would have been reached eventually. The seeds of Arianism preceded Constantine (Origen to Lucian), and it would have been a controversy even in a persecuted church. The church was able to stand united against heresies like Sabellianism, gnosticism, Marcionism and the like in the persecuted era.
Jim G.
Jim,
I am not one who rejects the whole of the monastic movement as problematic. I like significant portions of the monastic movement, especially when it makes its way to the West with Benedict. The issue of real conversions was certainly exacerbated, but I believe it was always a problem. Hence the warnings of wolves in sheep’s clothing.
I don’t fully espouse the notion or Origin promoting a pre Arian thought. I think he wrestled with the two ideas, and sought to provide a biblical reconciliation. Arius, took the thoughts of Origin and expanded them. Much Like Gregory took speculative ideas of Augustine to promote faulty practices. While the opportunity to reach similar conclusions might have been there, the unification of the church in the empire provided a context for full preservation of doctrine for all churches. Of course not all actually remained orthodox, but the ability to attempt to was there as a result of the Constantine’s move.
These are great discussions, and more of the kind I wish we could have on this site and others.
Hi Andy,
Completely agree we need to talk more on these subjects.
I think Origen was orthodox. I believe he was thinking-out-loud-on-paper trying to work out the basic christological dilemma – how can Jesus be fully one with the Father and yet be subordinate at least in his incarnate self? I think if Origen had heard the language of a century after his time – the partitive hermeneutic of Athanasius, for example – he would have bought into it in a heartbeat.
I’ve learned in my years of studying historical theology that the seminal thinker sows a seed of an idea that his students expand more fully. While Origen was struggling to find an orthodox way of espousing just how Jesus is subordinate, his student Lucian pushed the envelope, and then his student Arius pushed it over the edge. Arius’ heresy does not imply Origen’s complicity, but he took both Origen and Lucian too far.
The 4th and 5th century was certainly the church’s golden age theologically. No other era comes close to that kind of fruitfulness in doctrine.
Jim G.
Jim G
You make a very valid and relevant observation. In regard to Arius and Origen a question as well as a concern comes to mind. In the line of progression from Origen to Arius we see a concept that is somewhat sound (Origen) move to teachings that are less than acceptable (Arius). The question would be “why”? Was the foundation not explored enough thus leading to too much latitude in development? Id this just the human nature? Is this the nature of idea development and transmission? I don’t know, I am asking.
The question I pose is not academic. It is practical. It seems that even in todays world of the transmission of theological information a particular man will develop a teaching that is Biblically sound, but before long other “thinkers” build on that foundation a Biblically errant teaching. The “Prosperity Gospel” is a case in point.
Andy
Space and length are important, no doubt. You decision to focus on these 5 was a good decision. I would however, like to see you write a post on these other two. You do a good job with them.
As I look back I am somewhat surprised to realize that these councils were almost a footnote in the curriculum at the seminary. As was stated they are quite enlightening .
Thank you
D.L.
When I am teaching CH I seek to emphasize them and the importance of the early church. So many foundations are laid during that crucial time.
Thanks for the encouragement, and I will see about posting about the later councils.
Andy
I wil look forward to that
+1
Christiane,
I am not familiar with the “+1.” What does that mean?
Hi ANDY
it means I’m ALSO looking forward to reading your post on the next two councils. . . I enjoyed reading this post . . . I appreciate your scholarship and your clear writing . . . we, of course, do not agree on everything, but I can see that you have done much work before publishing this here, and the (plus ‘one’) means ‘count me in’ as someone who looks forward to reading more of your writing . . .
the +1 is a compliment, ANDY 🙂
I think she’s saying +1 to DL’s comment of looking forward to your post on this topic.
I really appreciate the words of encouragement. I enjoy writing this type of content. Hope to continue and appeal to others as I write.