“I believe…in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God…” The Nicene Creed (Modern Version)
Written by Dr. Marcus J. Serven
For the past 1,700 years the Nicene Creed has stood as a formidable bulwark against theological heresy. The Christian Church has recited it in our worship services and studied its doctrinal formulations in our theology classes. The first of the Ecumenical Creeds, it set the standard for how we answer the question, “Who is Jesus Christ?” Over time its affirmations have become known as settled doctrine and as a result it has saved many a Christian from being lured into erroneous beliefs about the Lord Jesus Christ. Let us give thanks to God for the theological precision of the Nicene Creed and its careful commitment to the authority of Holy Scripture. Under what circumstances did it come about?
The Historical Context:
Called by Emperor Constantine in AD 325, this council focused on two significant problems within the Church: (1) the Melitian schisms (i.e. the re-admittance of lapsed Christians from the Diocletian persecution), (2) and the Arian crisis (i.e. the rejection of Jesus Christ as the eternal Son of God). The decisions made at the Council of Nicaea proved to be pivotal in answering these two conflicts. Dr. John H. Leith, the noted Church historian, described the context of the Council of Nicaea especially in relation to the Arian crisis in this way:
“The occasion was the dispute concerning the theology of Arius, which raised in acute form the question of the meaning and significance of Jesus Christ. The Christian community had been accustomed to regard him as God as well as man. Arian theology forced the Christian Church to say in what sense he was God. Arius insisted that the Word or Son was a creature, that he was made by God, that he had a beginning, and that he was subject to change. This means, as Athanasius pointed out, that the Son does not have full and accurate knowledge of the Father. In Jesus Christ, man is not really confronted by God. The Nicene Creed insisted that God has fully come into human history in Jesus Christ. It sought to make this clear through certain key phrases in the creed: ‘That is, of the essence of the Father’; ‘True God from true God’; ‘Begotten, not created’; ‘Of one essence [reality] with the Father’.”
— John H. Leith, Creeds of the Churches, 28-29.
Beginning on May 20th, AD 325, the council included three hundred and eighteen representatives of which most were from the Greek-speaking East. The Latin-oriented West was only represented by four or five bishops and two priests from Rome; although Bishop Hosius (AD c.256-357) from Cordova, Spain presided over the entire council. Regarding the question of the “lapsed” (Lat. lapsi), the council determined that these individuals should be restored to fellowship within the church upon the confession of their sin and a demonstration of genuine repentance. Church officers who “lapsed” was a more complicated problem. Generally, it became the practice that they could be restored to fellowship within the Church, but not restored to their former offices.
The second question, however, proved to be much more difficult to resolve. The Arians believed that Jesus Christ was a “little god” who was created by the Father, and therefore was subordinate to the Father. After rigorous debate the council concluded that Jesus Christ was of the “same nature” (Gk. homoousias) as the Father, rather than being of “like nature” (Gk. homoiousias) to the Father. Briefly stated, Jesus was recognized as the eternal Son of God, sharing the same essential nature as God the Father. Arianism was declared to be a heresy. The statement “I and the Father are one” (in John 10:30) was clearly to be understood as a reference to the Father and the Son sharing the “same essential nature.” The Nicene Creed was formed out of this theological disputation and affirmed the doctrine that Jesus Christ was “of the same nature” with the Father.
Eusebius of Caesarea (AD c.265-c.339) submitted a baptismal creed from his own city as a basis for the final form of the creed. Athanasius (AD c.296-373), the great defender of Nicene Christology, attended this council as an assistant to his mentor, Bishop Alexander (d.328) of Alexandria. Arius (c.250-d.336) and his supporters, notably Eusebius of Nicomedia (d.342) also attended the council, but were excommunicated as a result. Arianism, though, remained popular within the Empire until it was finally repudiated at the 1st Council of Constantinople in AD 381. Hence the Creed that we now recite is sometimes referred to as the Niceo-Constantinopolitan Creed. Despite the defeat of Arianism at Constantinople (AD 381), this false system of belief claiming that Jesus Christ “was created” lives on in the heretical teachings of the modern-day Jehovah Witnesses who hold that Jesus Christ was the Father’s first created creature.
The Development of the Creed:
During the heated debate at the council of Nicaea, Eusebius of Caesarea artfully suggested the adoption of the baptismal creed from his own church as a formula of orthodoxy. The connection between the wording in the baptismal creed of Caesarea and the future Nicene Creed can clearly be seen. The Caesarean Creed reads as follows,
“We believe in one God, the Father All-sovereign, the maker of things visible and invisible; And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God of God, Light of Light, Life of Life, Son only-begotten, Firstborn of all creation, begotten of the Father before all ages, through whom also all things were made; who was made flesh for our salvation and lived among men, and suffered, and rose again on the third day, and ascended to the Father; We believe also in one Holy Spirit.”
The creed presented by Eusebius was certainly orthodox, but most delegates at the council recognized that it did not deal explicitly with the Arian position—and that was the very issue that must be addressed. Thus, it was taken as a foundational document, and after several additions was put forward by the council in this revised form (additions and alterations are in italics):
“We believe in one God the Father All-sovereign, maker of all things visible and invisible; And in the one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only-begotten, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through whom all things are made, things in heaven and things on the earth; who for us men and for our salvation came down and was made flesh, and became man, suffered, and rose on the third day, ascended into the heaven, is coming to judge living and dead. And in the Holy Spirit. And those that say ‘There was when he was not,’ and that, ‘He came into being from what-is-not,’ or those that allege, that the son of God is ‘Of another substance or essence’ or ‘created,’ or ‘changeable’ or ‘alterable,’ these the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes.”
(Both citations are from Bettenson and Mauder, Documents of the Christian Church, 4th Edition, 26-27)
A Theological Analysis of the Nicene Creed:
As time progressed, the anathemas at the end of the Nicene Creed dropped away. The version of the Nicene Creed listed below comes from the text used by Cyril of Jerusalem (AD c.310-386) in his Catechetical Lectures on the theology of the Creed. This version also reflects the additions made at the First Council of Constantinople in AD 381. Note: The text of the Nicene Creed is in quotes; and my theological comments are in bold type.
— “We believe in one God the Father All-sovereign [Gk. pantokratora], maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.” (Affirming that God the Father is the Creator of all things, and rejecting the errors of Gnosticism and the Greek mystery religions that teach there are many so-called “gods” who are only known through a “secret knowledge.”)
— “And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten [Gk. monogenes] Son of God,” (Affirming the eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ, and rejecting the false belief of the Ebionites that Jesus was only a deeply spiritual man)
— “Begotten [Gk. gennethenta pro panton ton aionion] of the Father before all the ages,” (Affirming the pre-existence of Jesus Christ, and rejecting the false narrative of the Arians that Jesus was the Father’s first created creature)
— “Light of Light, true God of true God,” [Gk. phos et phosos, Theon alethinon ek Theou alethinou] (Teaching that Jesus Christ is of the same nature and essence [Gk. hypostasis or ousia] of God the Father, and rejecting the false teaching that Jesus was only “like” God but not truly God)
— “begotten not made,” [Gk. gennethenta ou poiethenta] (Affirming the preexistence of Jesus Christ before all time, and denying the false belief of the Arians that there was a time when Jesus Christ “was not”)
— “of one substance with the Father,” [Gk. homoousian to patri] (Essentily teaching that Jesus Christ is “coequal, consubstantial, and coeternal” [from the Confession of Chalcedon in AD 451] with the Father, against the erroneous teaching of Arianism and Eunomianism [a later variant of Arianism in the 4th Century], which asserts that Jesus Christ is only “like” God the Father but not of the same essence [i.e. that the Son of God was subordinate to the Father]. While it is true that Jesus subordinated himself to the Father’s will [cf. Luke 22:42], this in no way takes away any claim to his essential nature of being equal with God the Father [cf. John 1:1-5; 1:14, 18; 5:18; 8:56-59; 10:30-33; 17:1-5; Phil. 2:9-11; Col. 2:9; Heb. 1:1-3])
— “through whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down from heavens, and was made flesh [Gk. sarkothenta] of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man [Gk. enanthropesanta],” (Stating that Jesus Christ participated in the creation of “all things” in the beginning, and that he “was made flesh…and became man” through the Incarnation by means of the Virgin Birth. These affirmations stood against the errors of Monophysitism [Jesus has only one nature—a divine nature] and Adoptionism [Jesus only became the Son of God at his baptism])
— “and was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried,” (Affirming the doctrine of the Substitutionary Atonement by use of the words “was crucified for us,” and denying the erroneous beliefs of the Ebionites [Jesus was merely a teacher, but not a Savior], the Sabellians [Jesus was only the current manifestation of God; i.e. Modalistic Monarchians] who rejected the Trinity, and the Pelagians [Jesus was only an example of righteousness, but not truly a Savior] who rejected the necessity of Jesus’ death for the forgiveness of sins)
— “and rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures, and ascended into the heavens, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father, and cometh again with glory to judge the living and dead, of whose kingdom there shall be no end.” (Teaching the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, and his ascension into Heaven to rule over his Kingdom, and rejecting the Docetists who taught that Jesus only “appeared to be like” God. Note the magisterial progression: “…rose again…ascended…sitteth…cometh again…”)
— “And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Life-giver, that proceedeth from the Father (Affirming the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father [this phrase was added in AD 381 at the 1st Council of Constantinople], and denying the erroneous teaching of the Sabellians that the Holy Spirit was only the “divine will” of the Father rather than the third member of the Trinity)
— (“and the Son”) [Lat. filioque] (The Filioque clause was formally added to the Nicene Creed at the Third Counsel of Toledo in AD 589. It must be acknowledged, however, that well-regarded Church Fathers such as Tertullian, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, and Cyril of Alexandria all affirmed that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son long before Toledo in AD 589. See John 14:26 and 15:26 for context)
— “who with Father and Son is worshipped together and glorified together, who spake by the prophets.” (Teaching that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are all worthy of worship, in contrast to the Sabellians [i.e. Modalistic Monarchians] who reject the doctrine of the Trinity)
— “In one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church: We acknowledge one baptism unto remission of sins. We look for a resurrection of the dead, and the life of the age to come.” (Affirming the true spiritual unity of the Church of Jesus Christ even in times of intense persecution, against the sectarian practices of Montanism [i.e. the visible church must be a pure church] and the followers of Novatian of Rome [Lat. cathari = “the pure ones”] who would not allow any of the “lapsed” to ever rejoin the Church)
(“The Nicene Creed” – the text is cited by Bettenson and Mauder, Documents of the Christian Church, 4th Edition, 27-28)
Its Relevance for Today:
Dr. Mark A. Noll, a contemporary evangelical historian from Regent College, addresses the ongoing relevance of the Nicene Creed by stating,
“The Nicene Creed has remained for nearly seventeen centuries a secure foundation for the church’s theology, worship, and prayer. Not only does it succinctly summarize the facts of biblical revelation, but it also stands as a bulwark against the persistent human tendency to prefer logical deductions concerning what God must be like and how he must act to the lived realities of God’s self-disclosure. And it powerfully restates the realities of Christ’s divine nature, his incarnation as a human being, and the work of salvation he accomplishes for his people. The turning point in Christian history represented by the Nicene Creed was the church’s critical choice for the wisdom of God in preference to human wisdom. Theologically considered, no decision could ever be more important.”
— Mark Noll, Turning Points: Decisive Moments in the History of Christianity, 59.
Certainly, the Christian Church should gratefully acknowledge the abundant blessings that have come from the hard-fought debates and thoughtful conclusions that are found in the Nicene Creed. The precise theological formulations contained in it have been recognized over time as settled doctrine. In other words, the affirmations contained in the Nicene Creed are an accurate summary of the teachings of Holy Scripture (i.e orthodoxy = “the right opinion”), and they are a tested means of measuring theological error (i.e. heterodoxy = “differing in opinion”). Over the course of a year it is profitable for all Christians to recite the Nicene Creed in our worship services and to study it in our classes, knowing that previous generations of Bible-believing Christians have clung to its affirmations as we must do as well.
Resources for Further Study:
Berkhof, Louis. The History of Christian Doctrines. Edinburgh, Scotland: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1937.
Bettenson, Henry and Chris Maunder, eds. Documents of the Christian Church. Fourth Edition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Boer, Harry R. A Short History of the Early Church. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1976.
Boyle, Isaac. “A Historical View of the Council of Nice” in The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus. Grand Rapids, MI: Reprint, Baker Book House, 1992.
Brown, Harold O. J. Heresies: The Image of Christ in the Mirror of Heresy and Orthodoxy from the Apostles to the Present. New York, NY: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1984.
Cunningham, William. Historical Theology. Volume 1. First Published in 1862; Edinburgh, Scotland: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1960.
Douglas, J. D., gen. ed. The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church. Revised Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1978.
- “Adoptianism” by Harold H. Rowdon
- “Arianism” by Samuel J. Mikolaski
- “Athanasian Creed” by Samuel J. Mikolaski
- “Athanasius” by Samuel J. Mikolaski
- “Christology” by Samuel J. Mikolaski
- “Constantinople, First Council of (381)” by G. T. D. Angel
- “Constantine the Great” by David F. Wright
- “Docetism” by G. W. Grogan
- “Donatists” by David F. Wright
- “Ebonites” by H. L. Ellison
- “Eusebius of Caesarea” by J. G. G. Norman
- “Eusebius of Nicomedia” by Peter Toon
- “Gnosticism” by Edwin Yamauchi
- “Heresy” by Stephen S. Smalley
- “Holy Spirit” by Leon Morris
- “Lapsi” by David F. Wright
- “Marcion” by W. Ward Gasque
- “Martyr, Martyrology” by Ralph P. Martin
- “Monarchianism” by Samual J. Mikolaski
- “Monophysitism” by George Giacumakis, Jr.
- “Monothelites” by H. D. McDonald
- “Nicea, Council of (325)” by G. L. Carey
- “Nicene Creed” by G. L. Carey
- “Nestorianism, Nestorius” by Peter Toon
- “Pelagianism” by David F. Wright
- “Valentinus” by Clyde Curry Smith
Kelly, John N. D. Early Christian Doctrines. Second Edition. New York, NY: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1958.
Lane, Anthony N. S. A Concise History of Christian Thought. Revised Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006.
Leith, John H. Creeds of the Churches: A Reader in Christian Doctrine from the Bible to the Present. Third Edition. Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1982.
Morecraft III, Joseph C. 2,000 Years of Christian Theology. San Antonio, TX: The Vision Forum, Inc., 2012.
Noll, Mark A. Turning Points: Decisive Moments in the History of Christianity. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1997.
Rushdoony, Rousas John. The Foundations of Social Order: Studies in the Creeds and Councils of the Early Church. Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1968.
Schaff, Philip. The Creeds of Christendom. 3 Volumes. Sixth Edition. Revised by David S. Schaff, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998.
Seeberg, Reinhold. Text-Book of the History of Doctrines. Translated by Charles E. Hay. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1952.
Dr. Marcus J. Serven, ThM and DMin
The Genevan Foundation – Copyright 2025 – All Rights Reserved