Arian Controversy and the Council of Nicaea | World History | Khan Academy

- [Instructor] In previous videos,

we have talked about
how Christianity evolved

and developed under the Roman Empire.

In particular we saw
that as we entered into

the 4th century, that
Christianity continued

to be persecuted, in particular by

the Emperor Diocletian, who had some of

the worst persecutions of the Christians.

But over the course of the next century,

from roughly 300 to 400,
the relationship between

the Roman Empire and Christianity

goes completely in the opposite direction.

As Constantine takes over, he becomes

sympathetic to the Christians and he

eventually becomes Christian himself.

Even then, there was a lot of diversity

within the Christian Church.

There were debates about the nature of

Jesus Christ relative to the Father,

relative to the Holy Spirit.

There were multiple sects of Christianity.

And one in particular
started to create a debate.

There was a priest in Alexandria,

which was one of the major
cities of the Roman Empire.

Now remember, by this
point, Rome of course is

one of the most significant,

if not the most significant city.

Now Constantine sets up
a capital at Byzantium,

which will eventually be
known as Constantinople.

And Alexandria, which
was originally founded

by Alexander the Great, is also

one of the significant
cities of the Empire.

And in Alexandria there
is a Christian priest

by the name of Arius,
who has a view on Christ

that becomes a bit of a controversy.

And to understand that, here is an account

of his writings, or his beliefs.

So this is Arius of Alexandria.

If the Father begat the
Son, he that was begotten

had a beginning of existence:
and from this it is evident,

that there was a time
when the Son was not.

It therefore necessarily follows that He,

the Son, had his substance from nothing.

So, he's drawing a distinction
between the essence

of the Father and the Son, who's
manifested as Jesus Christ.

Now this is very
controversial, because even

his own bishop in
Alexandria viewed the Father

and the Son to be of the same substance.

Now, today, you might say,
hey, isn't this just word play?

It feels like it's
semantic, which is really

debating around the meaning of words.

But, at the end of the Roman Empire

and as we get into the Middle Ages,

this was a major issue of philosophical

and it would sometimes bleed
over into political debate.

And so Constantine, who we
mentioned has a sympathy

towards the Christians,
he allows Christianity

to be tolerated, he does not
like this idea of this debate

and he wants to help unify the Christians.

So, in 325 he calls the Council of Nicaea,

to help resolve this controversy,

which gets known as the Arian Controversy,

named after Arius of Alexandria.

Now it's worth mentioning, Arius wasn't

the first person to make this argument,

that the Father in some
way was more divine

than the Son, because He begat the Son,

He existed before the Son.

But this controversy really
revolves around Arius,

because he was especially persuasive about

spreading this view of
the relationship between

the Father and the Son,
manifested by Jesus.

And at the Council of
Nicaea, many of the bishops

throughout Christendom are in attendance,

it's known as the First
Ecumenical Conference,

the word ecumenical comes from

the Greek word for the inhabited Earth.

So you can view it as the Church leaders

from the inhabited
Earth, in order to create

a consensus about what it
means to be a Christian.

And Arius of Alexandria was there

to defend his position, but the majority

of those there did not
like his point of view.

So they declared Arius' beliefs

as heresy and they exile him.

And to be very clear
that they do not believe

that the Son is of a different substance

of the Father, they
issue the Nicene Creed.

So what I have here, this is known as

the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.

And this is based on the Nicene Creed,

which was established in
325, which was shorter,

but then in 381, under
Theodosius, you have

your Second Ecumenical
Council, which is held

in Constantinople, to reaffirm

some of the ideas of the Nicene Council.

And so as I read this, keep a look out for

some of these words, which
were really put there

to try to settle the Arian Controversy,

to try to ensure that that type

of belief does not surface again.

We believe in one God,
the Father Almighty,

Maker of heaven and earth, and of

all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus
Christ, the Son of God,

the Only-begotten, Begotten
of the Father before all ages.

So, not like Arius was
arguing, that there was a time

where the Father existed
before the Son existed.

Here it says begotten of the Father,

but before all ages, so there was

always a time when there was a Son.

Light of Light, Very God of
Very God, Begotten, not made;

of one essence with the Father,

by whom all things were made.

So, once again, really addressing
this Arian Controversy,

the Arian Heresy as it becomes known,

that the Father and the Son
are of the same essence,

one is not more divine than the other.

Who for us men and for our salvation

came down from heaven, and was incarnate

of the Holy Spirit and the
Virgin Mary, and was made man.

And was crucified also for
us under Pontius Pilate,

and suffered, and was buried.

And the third day He rose again,

according to the Scriptures.

And ascended into heaven, and sits

at the right hand of the Father.

And He shall come again with glory

to judge the living and the dead,

Whose kingdom shall have no end.

And we believe in the
Holy Spirit, the Lord,

and Giver of Life, Who
proceeds from the Father.

Now here in brackets I've
written filoque and the son?

Because even though the official Nicene-

Constantinopolitan Creed just says

Who proceeds from the
Father, as we will see

later on, as the Church starts to become

more and more divided,
in the West, in Latin,

the term filoque gets added,
which means and the son.

And, once again, this
is starting to address

this notion of how does the
Son relate to the Father?

So, when you add filoque,
you're saying, hey,

the Holy Spirit is emanating from both

the Father and the Son, versus just

the Father, but we'll get into that.

This was not a matter of debate

in the 4th century, but it
will become a matter of debate

as we go into the 6th century and beyond.

And we believe in the
Holy Spirit, the Lord,

and Giver of Life, Who
proceeds from the Father.

Who with the Father and the Son together

is worshiped and glorified,
Who spoke by the Prophets.

And we believe in one, holy, catholic,

meaning universal, and apostolic Church.

We acknowledge one Baptism
for the remission of sins.

We look for the Resurrection of the dead,

and the life of the age to come, Amen.

So this is interesting, because it's,

you can view it as a
unification of Christendom.

Now, as we will see,
that unification does not

hold well over the next
several hundred years.

Even though Arius is exiled
and he dies shortly thereafter,

you continue to have sympathetic bishops

and even Roman Emperors,
to the Arian Doctrine.

You also, this debate between the relation

of the Father and the Son continues,

we'll talk about this filoque debate.

But maybe most important
and the biggest cause

of the eventual divisions
between the Church,

ones that carry on even to today,

it's really about a power struggle.

So, as we've been talking about the late

Roman Empire and even the
fall of the Western Empire

and the beginning of the Byzantine Empire,

you might already notice that there are

several very powerful actors here.

With the fall of the Western Roman Empire,

you have the Byzantine Emperor,

who considers him, and as we'll see,

also herself, the Roman Emperor.

We have the Bishop, the Patriarch, or,

often known, the Pope of Rome.

Now Rome is significant,
because according to tradition

the Church at Rome was
founded by the Apostle Peter,

who is considered by many to be

the first amongst the Apostles.

But of course Rome was the
seat of the Roman Empire

for a very, very, very long time.

And so you could imagine the Bishop of

the Church of Rome, the Pope of Rome

would be a very powerful figure.

Now you also have the
Bishop or the Patriarch

of Constantinople,
which is another capital

and really the capital
of the Byzantine Empire.

And so what we're going
to see, over the next

several hundred years, is
the jockeying for position

amongst these three, in particular

the Byzantine Emperor
and the Pope of Rome.

The Pope of Rome starts
to consider themselves

as really the leader
of all of Christendom.

The Patriarch of
Constantinople and the bishops

of the other major
centers of Christianity,

like Antioch and Jerusalem and Alexandria,

they view themselves as
all kind of a college of,

as peers and they will
give extra space for

the Pope of Rome or the Bishop of Rome,

because of the importance of
that city and the significance

of how the Church of Rome was founded.

And this gets, this jockeying for power

over the next several hundred years

gets even more complex as the West,

what was the Western Roman Empire,

or some of the areas of
the Western Roman Empire,

start to get consolidated under

Germanic rule really, Frankish rule

and you start having this notion of a

Holy Roman Emperor that we'll talk about

in a few hundred years down our timeline.

So, keep a look out for
this power struggle.

We're going to talk
about particular issues

of theological doctrine, things like

the filoque issue, things
like the relationship

between the Father and the Son,

whether you should have icons.

But, at the end of the day,

what's eventually going to lead to

the Great Schism, in the beginning

of the Second Millennium,
is this power struggle.