Why are the Nicene and Dedication Creeds so different?

Question

The Nicene and Dedication Councils were attended by more or less the same people and were only 16 years apart (325 vs 341) but resulted in opposing creeds. The Nicene Creed is pro-Sabellian but the Dedication Creed is anti-Sabellian. What made the difference?

More or less the same people

The Dedication Council was a Council of the Eastern Church and the Nicene Council was almost exclusively Eastern:

At Nicaea, the delegates were “drawn almost entirely from the eastern half of the empire” (LA, 19).

“Very few Western bishops took the trouble to attend the Council (of Nicaea). The Eastern Church was always the pioneer and leader in theological movements in the early Church. It is well known that Hilary, for instance, never really understood the Arian Controversy till he reached the East as a result of being exiled. The Westerners at the Council represented a tiny minority.” (RH, 170)

The Nicene Council “was overwhelmingly Eastern, and only represented the Western Church in a meagre way.” (RH, 156)

The Nicene Creed is pro-Sabellian.

“If we are to take the creed N at its face value, the theology of Eustathius and Marcellus was the theology which triumphed at Nicaea. That creed admits the possibility of only one ousia and one hypostasis. This was the hallmark of the theology of these two men.” (RH, 235) [Eustathius and Marcellus were the two main Sabellians who attended in Nicene Council.]

“The Creed of Nicaea of 325 … ultimately confounded the confusion because its use of the words ousia and hypostasis was so ambiguous as to suggest that the Fathers of Nicaea had fallen into Sabellianism, a view recognized as a heresy even at that period.” (Hanson’s Lecture)

“In the controversies which erupted over Eustathius of Antioch and Marcellus after Nicaea, both thought their theologies faithful to Nicaea—and they had good grounds for so assuming. Both were influential at the council, and Nicaea’s lapidary formulations were never intended to rule out their theological idiosyncrasies.” (LA, 99)

After Nicaea, the Creed was associated “with the theology of Marcellus of Ancyra. … The language of that creed seemed to offer no prophylactic (prevention) against Marcellan doctrine, and increasingly came to be seen as implying such doctrine.” (LA, 96, 97)

“To many the creed seemed strongly to favour the unitarian tendency among these existing trajectories.” (LA, 431) [Ayres uses the term “unitarian” to refer to Sabellianism. For example: “A great deal of controversy was caused in the years after the council by some supporters of Nicaea whose theology had strongly unitarian tendencies. Chief among these was Marcellus of Ancyra.” (LA, 431))

“Simonetti estimates the Nicene Council as a temporary alliance for the defeat of Arianism between the tradition of Alexandria led by Alexander and ‘Asiatic’ circles (i.e. Eustathius, Marcellus) whose thought was at the opposite pole to that of Arius. … Alexander … accepted virtual Sabellianism in order to ensure the defeat of Arianism. … The ‘Asiatics’ … were able to include in N a hint of opposition to the three hypostases theory.” (RH, 171)

It is not “an openly Sabellian creed.” “It is going too far to say that N is a clearly Sabellian document. … It is exceeding the evidence to represent the Council as a total victory for the anti-Origenist opponents of the doctrine of three hypostases. It was more like a drawn battle.” (RH, 172) Ayres says that his conclusions are close to Hanson’s in this regard (LA, 92).

The Dedication Creed of 431 “represents the nearest approach we can make to discovering the views of the ordinary educated Eastern bishop who was no admirer of the extreme views of Arius but who had been shocked and disturbed by the apparent Sabellianism of Nicaea.” (RH, 290)

The Dedication Creed is anti-Seballian.

While Sabellianism asserts only one single hypostasis, meaning one single rational capacity or mind, the Dedication Creed explicitly asserts that the trinity is “three in hypostasis but one in agreement (συμφωνία)” (LA, 118). “One in agreement” indicates the existence of three distinct ‘Minds’.

The Dedication Creed’s “chief bête noire [the thing that it particularly dislikes] is Sabellianism, the denial of a distinction between the three within the Godhead.” (RH, 287)

The Dedication creed is “strongly anti-Sabellian.” (RH, 287)

“The creed has a clear anti-Sabellian and anti-Marcellan thrust.” (LA, 119)

LA = Ayres, Lewis, Nicaea and its Legacy, An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology, 2004

RH = Hanson RPC, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381. 1988

Answer 1

The reason for the difference in the two creeds is that Emperor Constantine was present at the Nicene Council and manipulated the outcome:

Legalized Christianity - Religious freedom did not exist in the Roman Empire. The emperors decided which religions are allowed. After three centuries of persecution by the Roman authorities, Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity in the year 313.

Letter to Alexander and Arius - Even before Constantine understood the matter, he wrote to Alexander and Arius to stop their quarreling. This shows that he got involved in this dispute, not because of a desire for right doctrine, but because he could not afford a split in the church.

Council in Antioch - A few months before the Council of Nicaea, an anti-Arian Council was held in Antioch, consisting mainly of people who sympathized with Alexander. It provisionally excommunicated Eusebius of Caesarea, the most respected theologian of that time, who also supported Arius against Alexander. Since Constantine’s religious advisor (Ossius) chaired this meeting, it was approved by Constantine, which means that, even before Nicaea, Constantine had taken Alexander’s part.

Called the Council - Constantine called the Nicene Council. Nobody asked him to do it. He did it on his own initiative for his own purposes. It was Constantine’s meeting in his capacity as emperor.

The General Council - In fact, Constantine invented the concept of a general council for the church. The church never before had a meeting of representatives from all parts of the empire. Neither did it have the ability to call such a council. Only the emperor was able to call such a meeting.

Emperor's Motive - As his letter to Arius and Alexander shows, Constantine did not call the Nicene Council because of a concern about right doctrine. He called the Council because a split in the church could also split the empire. Constantine, therefore, invented and called the general council as a means of managing the church in the interest of the empire.

Chairperson - To ensure that the Nicene Council remains under his control, the emperor appointed his religious advisor (Ossius) as chairperson. Ossius acted as Constantine’s agent.

Took Alexander’s Part – It is often correctly stated that Arius had considerable support. The Nicene Creed, however, was constructed as a deliberately anti-Arian document and was approved by all of the 250-300 delegates, except 2. Why? Arius’ support was not really support for his theology. It was a vote AGAINST Alexander’s theology. Alexander, however, was victorious at Nicaea because the emperor had taken his part. If Constantine had not taken Alexander’s part, the meeting might have condemned Alexander; not Arius.

Homoousios - At the time, the term homoousios (same substance) seemed especially objectionable to many people because it was associated with Sabellianism, is not a Biblical term, was not part of the standard Christian language, but was borrowed from pagan philosophy. (See - Objections to Homoousios) Constantine’s decisive influence on the Council and on the Creed, therefore, is particularly revealed by the fact that he was able to force the inclusion of the word homoousios. He personally proposed, explained, and enforced the key term homoousios.

Reconcile – Although Constantine took Alexander’s part and insisted on Homoousios, his ultimate goal was to reconcile the quarreling parties. For example, he explained homoousios in such a way that even the Eusebians (the so-called Arians) were able to accept the term. He paid all expenses and surrounded the delegates with honor.

Exile - The bishops knew, if they do not accept the Creed, that they would lose their jobs and be exiled to a different part of the empire. How many bishops would have voted against the Nicene Creed if exile was not hanging over their heads?

Exile and Restore - In the Roman Empire, the standard penalty for bishops for deviant teachings was exile but only the emperor was able to exile and restore bishops.

Enforced Nicaea - After Nicaea, Constantine issued a number of letters attempting to enforce the Council’s decisions.

Conclusion - “Constantine took part in the Council of Nicaea and ensured that it reached the kind of conclusion which he thought best.” (RH, 850)

The above is a summary of the article - Constantine's role in the Council of Nicaea

The Nicene Council was attended almost exclusively by delegates from the Eastern Church. Since the Dedication Council was a council of the Eastern Church, the Dedication Creed shows how the Nicene Creed would have read if Constantine had not manipulated the outcome.