There was a lot of political intrigue by bishops, philosphers, and government backed theologians. Besides where in the Bible does it say bishops who are outranked by Apostles can vote on what the Apostles really meant. The Bible shows it the other way around and Paul counsels the bishops on what is defined as correct or incorrect Docrtine in his letters. The Word of God is not subject to a political vote. Those who seek to push a narrow definition of orthodoxy today fall into this same pothole, by usurping Jesus as the judge of who is Christian in favor of what is defined by popular demand.
__________________________________________
The Council of Nicea and its Aftermath Arius was suspended from the office of Elder in Alexandria by his bishop, but he had friends in high places, and soon gained a substantial following. This caused great uneasiness in the Eastern Church, but it wasn't until the Emperor Constantine turned his attention to the affair that a resolution was reached.210 Constantine, though not yet a Christian himself, had effected a reconciliation between the Christian faith and the Roman state, and Christianity became the official religion. Thus the unity of the Church was of prime importance to him211, so the Emperor called together a council of bishops at Nicea in the year 325 to resolve the issue.
However, such a resolution was no simple proposition, because at that time there really was no single "orthodox" position on the nature of the Trinity. As Richard Hanson states:
In the first place, on the central subject of the dispute, how divine is Jesus Christ, there was in the year 318 no universally recognized orthodox answer. This is one reason why the controversy lasted so long. It was a controversy which resulted in the determination of orthodoxy, not one consisting solely or even mainly in the defence of orthodoxy . . . . There were indeed certain extreme views which virtually everybody repudiated: that Jesus was a 'mere man' and nothing more . . . , that there were no distinctions within the Godhead but only one God in three different aspects . . . ; that the doctrine of the Trinity meant that God was cut up, divided or diminished. But within these very broad limits no doctrine could properly be said to be heretical. Even Arius's views when they were first propounded could have been regarded (as Eusebius of Caesarea regarded them) as no more than a radical version of an acceptable tradition of theology.212
Three major parties were represented at the Council of Nicea and in subsequent controversies.213 First were the Arians; second and most numerous were those that Kelly calls "the great conservative 'middle party'";214 third was a group later called the "Nicene" party, led by Athanasius and others.215
The "middle party," of which Eusebius of Caesarea was a representative, taught that there were three divine persons, "separate in rank and glory but united in harmony of will."216 This, as we have seen, had been the doctrine of the Church from the beginning, but there were a variety of interpretations which fell under this heading. As Hanson pointed out above, the Arian doctrine was not far removed from that of some factions of the middle party. After all, Arius taught that Jesus was the "prince of angels"217 and a "second god" subordinate to the Father, just as Eusebius himself did. Thus, the only truly radical component of Arian Christology was the belief that Jesus had been created out of nothing rather than out of the Divine Substance.218
Athanasius and the Nicenes, on the other hand, started with the assumption that the Son must be fully God. This naturally precluded the Arian position, but also that of the "middle party," because an indivisible, uncompounded, and simple "One" cannot admit of the division, or at least the compound nature, implied by traditional subordinationism. Athanasius reasoned that the Trinity must be "one being," but not so as to destroy the distinction between the three "persons." How can this be? Athanasius balked at explaining how this could be, because, after all, the subject of any such explanation is infinite, eternal, and ultimately beyond the grasp of the human mind. Therefore, he merely affirmed as fact that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are "one being" with respect to the "Divine Substance," with no divisions as implied by differences in rank and glory, and yet in some very real sense, "three persons."219
In keeping with their philosophy, the Nicenes proposed the use of the word "homoousios" or "of one substance" in the Nicene Creed, but gave to it a meaning that it had not had before within Christian circles. According to J.N.D. Kelly, the root word ousia or "substance" could signify either the "essence" common to a class, in the sense that earlier Christians had used it, or alternatively an individual thing. He writes that "there can be no doubt" that as applied to an immaterial and indivisible Godhead, the term "homoousios" requires the latter meaning.220 And indeed, this is the manner in which modern mainstream Christian theologians interpret the wording of the Nicene Creed. Although it is apparent that Athanasius and his followers applied this meaning to the word, they were in the minority. The "middle party," on the other hand, constituted the majority, and they applied the word "homoousios" in the traditional sense, implying only that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the same kind of being, differing in rank and glory.221 Therefore, when the Nicene Council affirmed that the Trinity is "of one substance," they were not attempting to create any sort of precise definition of the oneness of the Godhead. Rather, they were affirming the deity of the Son in terms that could attract broad agreement so they could formally discredit the Arians.222
This was not the end of the controversy, however. Many who aligned themselves with the middle party were uneasy with the language of the Nicene Creed. They felt that Athanasius's interpretation of it was nothing more than thinly veiled modalism.223 Therefore, some of them suggested substituting the word "homoiousios" or "of like substance" into the creed. Over the next 50 years the battle raged back and forth, and some 14 councils produced competing creeds ranging from Nicene to Arian positions.224
Eventually, the Nicene position won out, and from the time of the Council of Constantinople (381) on, subordinationism was officially rejected. Davies summarizes:
This meant the end of subordinationism. The Son and the Spirit are equal to the Father as touching their divinity because each is a presentation of an identical divine being. The only priority of the Father is a logical, not a temporal, one since the Son and the Spirit derive from him as their source; but this priority involves no superiority.225
Likewise, there was no more talk of a "second god." As Basil of Caesarea explained, this was considered no better than heathen polytheism:
They on the other hand who support their sub-numeration by talking of first and second and third ought to be informed that into the undefiled theology of Christians they are importing the polytheism of heathen error. No other result can be achieved by the fell device of sub-numeration than the confession of a first, a second, and a third God. For us is sufficient the order prescribed by the Lord. He who confuses this order will be no less guilty of transgressing the law than are the impious heathen.226
Certainly this represented a break from tradition. However, it is clear that given the concept of God as "the One," either the full deity of the Son had to be rejected (as in the case of the Arians), or subordinationism had to be rejected.
Ping to #196