By Tom Knoff
The Church has long faced challenges in clarifying and defending the person and nature of Jesus Christ. These challenges primarily concern His deity, humanity, and the union of His two natures in one hypostasis. While contemporary apologetics benefits from modern tools, the lessons of the Councils of Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381) remain indispensable.
This article examines how these councils addressed key Christological controversies, demonstrating that an effective defense of orthodox Christology requires reliance on the apostolic record, theological precision, and ongoing vigilance.
Reliance on the Apostolic Record
Reliance on the apostolic record means grounding theological arguments and doctrinal defenses in the authoritative teachings of Scripture as preserved and transmitted by the apostles. In early Christological debates, the Church turned to the Bible to clarify the person and work of Jesus, ensuring that their conclusions aligned with the divine revelation entrusted to the apostolic community.
The Arian controversy, which prompted the Council of Nicaea, questioned Christ’s full divinity. Arius argued that Christ was a created being, not coeternal with the Father, thus reducing Him to a demigod. In response, the Nicene Council grounded its defense in Scripture, particularly in texts like Colossians 2:9-10, which declare: “In Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form” (NASB). The resulting Nicene Creed affirmed Christ as “of one substance with the Father” (Bettenson and Maunder, Documents of the Christian Church, 27).
Skeptics like Bart Ehrman argue that orthodox Christology was a later innovation (Ehrman, Jesus, Interrupted, 215). However, scholars such as Andreas Köstenberger emphasize that early Church leaders were stewards of apostolic teachings, not innovators (Köstenberger, Bock, and Chatraw, Truth in a Culture of Doubt, 122). By relying on Scripture, the Nicene Council exemplified the Church’s consistent appeal to biblical authority in resolving doctrinal disputes. This reliance on Scripture underscores its foundational role in articulating and defending Christological doctrine. Modern apologists can draw confidence from this precedent, trusting Scripture as the ultimate source of theological truth.
Theological Precision
Theological precision refers to the careful formulation of doctrine to ensure accuracy and clarity in expressing biblical truth. In the face of heresies and nuanced arguments, theological precision is essential for articulating orthodox beliefs and safeguarding the faith from distortion.
Theological precision was critical at Nicaea in addressing Arianism’s nuanced arguments. Arius claimed that Christ was created before all else and served as the intermediary for creation. The council refuted this by carefully defining Christ’s divine nature as coeternal with the Father, explicitly declaring in the Nicene Creed that Christ is “begotten, not made” (Bettenson and Maunder, Documents of the Christian Church, 27).
The Council of Constantinople later addressed Apollinarianism, which affirmed Christ’s divinity but denied His full humanity, arguing that the divine Logos replaced His human mind. Gregory of Nazianzus countered this by asserting that Christ assumed a complete human nature: “We assert the dogma of the unity and identity of the Person… who in these last days has assumed manhood also for our salvation” (Bettenson and Maunder, Documents of the Christian Church, 49). This reaffirmed the necessity of both Christ’s full deity and humanity for salvation. Theological precision is essential for safeguarding orthodoxy. By articulating doctrine with clarity, the early councils ensured the Church remained faithful to Scripture while addressing specific heresies.
Ongoing Vigilance
Ongoing vigilance involves the Church’s commitment to continually guard against heresies and theological distortions that may arise. Doctrinal challenges often resurface in different forms, requiring the Church to remain steadfast and proactive in preserving the truth of the gospel.
The victory at Nicaea did not end theological challenges. After Constantine’s death, Arianism resurged under his son Constantius, leading Jerome to lament, “The whole world groaned and marveled to find itself Arian” (Jerome, Dialogue against Luciferianos, 238). Similarly, Apollinarianism arose, requiring the Council of Constantinople to reaffirm Christ’s full humanity and divinity.
Constantinople built upon Nicaea’s achievements by refining the Nicene Creed and expanding its scope to include the Holy Spirit’s divinity. This vigilance ensured the Church addressed new challenges while preserving its commitment to orthodox Christology. As Tony Lane notes, Constantinople affirmed “that Jesus Christ was both fully God (against Arius) and fully man (against Apollinaris)” (Lane, A Concise History of Christian Thought, 41). The necessity of ongoing vigilance reminds the Church that theological battles are recurrent. The Church must remain alert and proactive in defending and clarifying core doctrines.
Lessons for Modern Apologetics
The Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople provide valuable lessons for modern apologetics, particularly in demonstrating the importance of Scripture as the foundation for doctrinal defense. The early Church’s reliance on the apostolic record underscores the authority and sufficiency of Scripture in addressing theological challenges. As the Nicene Council demonstrated in its response to Arianism, grounding Christological doctrine in texts like Colossians 2:9-10 affirmed Christ’s full divinity and countered heretical reinterpretations. Modern apologists would benefit from following this example, prioritizing biblical literacy and presenting clear, scriptural arguments in the face of contemporary skepticism. This approach equips believers to address challenges such as relativism and the undermining of biblical authority with confidence in the consistency and truth of God’s Word.
Another critical lesson is the necessity of vigilance and theological precision in defending the faith. The councils’ responses to heresies such as Arianism and Apollinarianism highlight the need to articulate doctrine with clarity and address nuanced errors that can distort core Christian beliefs. The resurgence of Arianism after Nicaea and the emergence of Apollinarianism before Constantinople reveal that doctrinal victories are not final; they require ongoing attentiveness and proactive engagement. For modern apologists, this means continually refining theological arguments, staying informed about emerging challenges, and fostering unity around essential truths. The Church today can learn from the perseverance and precision of early defenders, ensuring that Christological doctrines remain intact while presenting a compelling witness to the world.
About the Author
Tom Knoff, Ph.D. Candidate: Contributor
Tom Knoff serves as a Teaching Pastor at Inspiration Church in Mesquite, Texas. He is a Ph.D. Candidate in the Theology and Apologetics program at Liberty University. Tom and his wife Kim live in Texas and have four grown children.
Bibliography
Bettenson, Henry, and Chris Maunder, eds. Documents of the Christian Church. 3rd ed. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press, 1999.
Ehrman, Bart D. Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible. New York:
HarperCollins, 2009.
Jerome. Dialogue Against the Luciferians. In J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines. 5th rev. ed.
London: Continuum, 2007.
Köstenberger, Andreas J., Darrell L. Bock, and Josh D. Chatraw. Truth in a Culture of Doubt: Engaging
Skeptical Challenges to the Bible. Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2014.
Lane, Tony. A Concise History of Christian Thought. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006.
