Sermon -- Commemoration of the Council of Nicaea (June 15, 2025)

ACTS 20:17-21,28-32

WE CONFESS NOT WHAT SEEMS REASONABLE, BUT WHAT IS REVEALED.

In the name + of Jesus.

     We might like to think that there was a golden age in the Christian Church when God’s people had everything right and there was great harmony.  But that is not true.  There have always been enemies both outside and inside the Church.  St. Paul mentioned “the trials that came to me due to the plots of the Jews” (Acts 20:19).  When Paul came to a new city, he went to synagogue to declare that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ they had been waiting for.  He had fulfilled all God’s promises and died as the atoning sacrifice for our salvation.  Many received that message with great joy.  Others fought fiercely against him.  They slandered him, attacked him, and drove him from various cities.  In addition, the Roman government persecuted Christians because they refused to confess, “Caesar is Lord.”  We are not surprised that those outside the Church would attack it.

     When St. Paul met with the pastors who served the church in Ephesus, he warned them, “I know that after my departure savage wolves, who will not spare the flock, will come in among you.  Even from your own group men will rise up, twisting the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.  Therefore be always on the alert” (Acts 20:29-31)!  These attacks are more dangerous and damaging because they rise up from within.  Pastors and teachers, who were presumably trustworthy, perverted the words of God.  They did not reject God’s word, but twisted it to make it say what they wanted it to say.  Sometimes this twisting is done with evil intent; sometimes it is because they themselves have been deceived.  Our Lord calls us to be alert, not to be swayed by any pastor no matter how nice he is or how smoothly he speaks.  We must cling to the word of God and let nothing budge us from the sure teachings of God.

     In 313 AD, Emperor Constantine passed the Edict of Milan which legalized the Christian religion.  Constantine not only legalized Christianity, he was converted to it.  All good news for the Christian church, right?  But it was about this time that a pastor from Alexandria, Egypt, began teaching a new doctrine.  His name was Arius.  In short, Arius taught that Jesus is not really God.

     The way Arius taught this was so deceptive because of how reasonable he made it all sound.  Arius argued that, if Jesus is the Son of God, and if the Son was begotten of the Father, then there was a time when he did not exist.  After all, I did not exist in 1950.  My beginning is usually marked by my birthday.  So, if God the Son is begotten of the Father, then he had a beginning.  If he had a beginning, he is not eternal.  If he is not eternal, then he is not really God.  Perhaps he had a special status, but not God from eternity.  Arius’ logic appealed to many.  Arius even drafted hymns to reinforce his teaching.  Arius’ teaching threatened to divide, if not destroy, the Christian Church. 

     Emperor Constantine took action.  Perhaps it was because he had a legitimate concern for the Christian faith.  Perhaps it was because he wanted to retain unity and harmony in his Empire.  Probably a bit of both.  In any case, Emperor Constantine summoned bishops from all over the Roman Empire to convene at a city called Nicaea which is in modern-day Turkey.  So, 1,700 years ago this week, more than 300 bishops gathered to address Arius’ teaching and some other issues that were threatening to divide the Christian Church.  Their goal was to maintain the unity of the Christian confession.  They were to confess not what seemed reasonable, but what was revealed.

     Perhaps this issue sounds like pastors debating over doctrinal minutiae that has no real significance in day-to-day life.  Tomorrow, you will head off to work, give diligent attention to your responsibilities, and go home.  You will prepare a meal, eat, and clean up.  You might take a walk, mow the lawn, or scroll on your phone before going to bed.  Not once will you think about the theological wranglings that happened at Nicaea 1,700 years go.  I don’t say that as a rebuke, but understanding reality.

     In the same way, we don’t really give our attention to major events which have affected our lives.  We don’t think of the Magna Carta, the Revolutionary War, or the Battle of Midway.  If these events had turned out differently, our lives would be significantly different, too.  So also with the Council of Nicaea.  From it, we have received a confession of the true, Christian faith.  From those bishops, we learn to confess not what seems reasonable, but what is revealed.

     The Council of Nicaea thwarted a heresy which would destroy the Christian faith.  If Arius was right and Jesus is not true God, then you are damned.  If Jesus of Nazareth is not true God, then it was a man who went to the cross and died.  All his claims are lies.  All his promises are useless.  Even if we say that Jesus of Nazareth was a holy man, then he earned his place in the kingdom of God, but he has done nothing for you.  This is what the Lord says: “Truly no man can ransom another, or give to God the price of his life” (Psalm 49:7).  If Jesus is only a man—even a special man, given special gifts by God—then he has done nothing to help you. 

     This is what the Council of Nicaea addressed.  They did not vote on whether or not Jesus is God as The DaVinci Code asserted.  They did not invent doctrine.  They turned to the Scriptures to see what God had revealed there.  Arius trusted in reasoning; the bishops confessed what was revealed: Jesus is Immanuel, God with us.  Jesus declared, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30).  Since there is only one God, Jesus’ claim is that he is God.  Jesus told the Pharisees, “Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58).  That means he is eternal.  Only God is eternal; therefore, Jesus is God.  Even Jesus’ enemies understood his claim.  That’s why they tried to stone him for blasphemy.  Most important of all is that Jesus declared he would suffer, die, and rise on the third day, just as the Old Testament had prophesied.  And then he did it.  The Church did not invent these things.  The apostles witnessed them and then recorded them.  We confess not what seems reasonable, but what is revealed.

     The Council of Nicaea drafted a confession to determine which pastors were faithful to the Christian faith and which were not.  It was the first draft of the Nicene Creed.  (This confession was updated and adopted at the Council of Constantinople in 381 and is our current Nicene Creed.)  To confess what Scripture reveals, the Nicene Creed is more detailed than the Apostles’ Creed.  The bishops at Nicaea confessed that Jesus Christ is “God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father” (Nicene Creed).  Arius would never make this confession.  Nor do Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormons today.  This confession is a symbol of the true Christian faith.  We confess not what seems reasonable, but what is revealed.

     The spirit of Arius still persists within Christendom.  It is the spirit of using one’s reason to try to unravel the mysteries of God.  It is the desire to make God and the Bible agreeable to our way of thinking.  The prayer is, “Make it make sense!”  But reason does not always mesh with what God has revealed.  For example, the Bible teaches that God “chose us in (Christ) before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.  In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ” (Ephesians 1:4-5).  Now, if God chose some for salvation, reason concludes that those who were not chosen to be saved were chosen by God to be damned.  That sounds reasonable.  But what has God revealed?  “God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:3-4).  God is not willing that any should perish, so he certainly did not predestine people to be damned.  We confess not what seems reasonable, but what has been revealed.

     When we use our reason to rule over the Scriptures, the result is dangerous at best and destructive of the faith at worst.  Your defense of your sins seems reasonable to you because if you are determined to do something, it makes sense to you.  “I had good reasons to lie, to cheat, to blame God, to curse my neighbor.”  Why?  “Because: reasons!”    Everything we think, say, and do makes a confession.  The question is: Whose word are you confessing?

     To confess means to say the same thing.  To confess the Christian faith, we say the same thing as God reveals in his word.  When God’s word reveals, “You are a sinner,” we confess, “I am a sinner.”  When God’s word reveals that Jesus, the Son of God, came to take away our sins, we confess, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and my Savior.”  When God reveals that he created the universe in six 24-hour days, we confess, “I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth.  I reject evolution which says he did not.”  When Jesus tells us regarding the consecrated bread and wine, “This is my body.  This is my blood,” we confess, “It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and the wine, given to Christians to eat and to drink for the forgiveness of sins.”  When God reveals that marriage is a union of one man and one woman, we confess, “Marriage is the life-long union of one man and one woman.  Anything that differs from it is wicked.”  When God reveals that the pastoral office is limited to men, we confess that only males may serve as pastors.  When God reveals that we are to forgive those who sin against us, we pray, “Forgive us our trespasses, as we also forgive those who trespass against us.”  We confess not what seems reasonable, but what is revealed.

     Granted, sometimes what God reveals is hard.  It may offend your reason.  It certainly offends our culture, which has instructed and influenced us more than we would want to admit.  Much of what our culture teaches us seems reasonable because so many people live by it and defend it.  But the question is not, “Is it reasonable?”  The question is, “Did God reveal it?”  We confess not what is reasonable, but what is revealed. 

     In 325 AD, about 300 Christian bishops met to make a bold and faithful confession of the Christian faith.  That also meant condemning what stood against the faith.  It meant forsaking what seemed reasonable to maintain what is revealed.  We pray the Holy Spirit will instill in our spirit the same conviction to the Scriptures in word and deed.  “And now I entrust you to God and to the word of his grace, which has power to build you up and to give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified” (Acts 20:32). 

In the name of the Father and of the Son + and of the Holy Spirit.  Amen.

Worship Notes: The Nicene Creed

NICENE CREED – 1700^TH ANNIVERSARY

A short, simplified version:

            In 325 AD, Emperor Constantine called a council of Christian bishops from around the Roman Empire to meet in Nicaea (modern-day Turkey).  Several issues were addressed in order to come to a consensus and maintain unity within Christendom.  One issue of particular urgency was the teaching of a bishop from northern Africa named Arius.  Arius was teaching that Jesus Christ was not truly God.  He reasoned that, if the Son of God was begotten of the Father, there was a time when he did not exist.  This teaching affects the salvation of mankind and the heart of the Christian faith.  So, bishops convened in Nicaea from roughly June 12 – July 25.  They drafted a creed to confess what the true Christian faith is.  All but two of the attending bishops signed on to this creed.  They did not invent a doctrine, but formally composed a statement that confessed correct doctrine.  The Christian Church still confesses that statement today; it is the Nicene Creed.

A longer, more extensive version:

The Council of Nicaea: How the Early Church Sought Unity — With the Help of an Emperor

By Joel Elowsky

1,700 years ago, there was a newly united Roman Empire headed by a young emperor from Serbia named Constantine. The horrific persecution of Christians under Diocletian (A.D. 303–313) had just ended, and decrees pronouncing toleration of Christians had been issued by Galerius in 311 and by Constantine I and Licinius with the Edict of Milan in 313. In 312, Constantine had made his famous defeat of Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge: During the battle, “he saw with his own eyes the trophy of a cross of light in the heavens, above the sun, and an inscription, CONQUER BY THIS, attached to it.” Later that night, Constantine had a dream where Christ told him to mark this cross on the shields of his soldiers. Was this a sign of a new age, with a new emperor favorable to Christianity?

The debate over Constantine’s actual conversion continues among scholars. I see no problem with the account as written and believe it is authentic. Yet whether the emperor’s conversion was sincere or not, something had changed in the empire — and Roman emperors knew the power of faith in the public sphere. By the early fourth century, even before Constantine ascended the throne, Christianity had already grown into a force to be reckoned with. But with the growth also came tension and division. It was important to keep the empire united not only politically but also in matters of faith.

Divisions in the Church

The Diocletian persecution had put Christianity to the test. Divisions had developed in the church over what to do with those who had denied the faith under threat of torture or death. During the persecutions, while Bishop Peter of Alexandria languished in prison, Bishop Meletius of Lycopolis in Egypt began ordaining bishops. Meletius was part of the rigorist camp who thought the church was too lax in its requirements for readmission. He thought those he ordained could help right the ship of the church and bring it back to a purer form.

Another division in the church had deeper roots. It dated back at least to the second century and concerned when to celebrate Easter. Churches in Asia Minor and Syria followed the Jewish calendar, celebrating Easter on the 14th day of Nisan, the day when the Jews celebrated Passover. It could occur any day of the week. These Christians celebrated Easter on this date because the events of the Passion and resurrection recorded in the Gospels took place around the time of the Jewish Passover. Churches in Rome, Alexandria and Palestine, on the other hand, celebrated Easter on whatever Sunday followed the Jewish celebration of the Passover. They insisted that Easter always be celebrated on a Sunday, the day of the week when Christ rose from the dead. It was an important question for the church because pagans, like Porphyry and the second-century philosopher Celsus, had ridiculed the church for not being able to agree on the celebration of one of its most important commemorations.

While these issues were important, trouble was also brewing on another front that would occasion the calling of the Council of Nicaea. An upstart presbyter in the Alexandrian suburb of Baucalis named Arius had charged his bishop, Alexander, with false doctrine. The historian Socrates reports that Alexander had embarked on too ambitious a theological discussion of the unity of the Trinity in front of his presbyters and the rest of the clergy. Arius publicly challenged him, asserting that Alexander was espousing the heresy of modalism, ignoring the distinctions of the persons in the godhead.

Arius was concerned that the distinction between the Father and the Son was not being maintained. There could be only one creator and originator of all things: God the Father, who had no beginning. Arius challenged Alexander with a logical syllogism: “If the Father had begotten the Son, the one begotten had a beginning to his existence; from this clearly one must conclude that there was a time when the Son did not exist. It then follows necessarily that his substance arose out of nothing.” Arius believed that the Son was a creature — different from the rest of creation, but a creature nonetheless — whom God created to bring the rest of creation, including us, into being.

Over the next five years, the controversy escalated. In the meantime, Constantine became sole emperor in 324, defeating Licinius, his rival in the east who had been persecuting Christians. With this new and hard-fought political unity, Constantine was concerned about the theological dispute taking place in Alexandria. Thinking all of this was simply an argument over words that could be solved through negotiation, he sent his representative Bishop Hosius of Cordoba to Alexandria to try and resolve the matter. Hosius was not successful. Constantine decided to try something that had never been done on the scale he was envisioning. He wanted to call a church council that would include all the bishops of the empire.

The Great Council and the Nicene Creed

The historian Eusebius notes there was some urgency to hold the council: “All hurried eagerly to Nicaea as if competing in a race,” hoping for peace to be restored quickly to the church and the empire, and also eager for a chance to see this emperor who was so favorable toward the church. Somewhere between 250 and 318 bishops attended. These bishops were accompanied by acolytes, deacons, presbyters and others too many to count — perhaps as many as 2,000 — from “Europe, Africa and Asia.” There were also many laymen who were skilled in the art of philosophy and debate, each “eager to advocate the cause of his own party.” Priests and people were invested in this theological debate. It garnered as much attention as the Super Bowl or March Madness does today.

The council was convened sometime around May 20, 325, for preliminary discussions. It most likely officially opened around June 19 or 20. Bishops were seated according to rank and lined the palace hall on both sides, having the decisive vote (votum decisivum) in all matters of church discipline and theology. Constantine entered last, preceded by friends and members of his family, but no military entourage. He addressed the assembly, expressing his deep concern over the division in the church, and implored the bishops to find peace, just as he had brought peace to the land. Just like in the Roman senate, he had no vote. But according to Eusebius, he most likely participated in debate. And there was plenty of debate before the council and during the proceedings.

The key issue of the debates concerned Arius and his insistence that the Son was a creature of the Father, albeit highly exalted. The chief point of contention was the term homoousios (the Son being “of the same essence” with the Father). The Arians rejected this term, believing that it parceled out God’s essence into different entities so that God was no longer one. Further, they argued, since the Son had become incarnate and suffered, this meant He was subject to change; therefore, He could not be God. The orthodox countered that homoousios was the only term that could speak to the unity and equality of the Son with the Father. The Son is “not only like, but also inseparable from the essence of the Father. He and the Father are one [John 10:30].” God took on flesh and suffered in order to change our nature, not His.

After many days of debate, they settled on the wording of the Nicene Creed, utilizing many of the same phrases that had appeared in a creed earlier that year at a council held in Antioch. They sent it to Constantine, noting that there were 18 or so detractors among the Arians. Most of these promptly signed after Constantine threatened them with exile. Arius was exiled, along with a couple of other bishops, and his writings were ordered to be burned (which is why we have to rely on his opponents for most of what we know about his teaching).

We assume the council lasted until July 25, with most bishops staying around to observe the celebration of Constantine’s 20th anniversary as emperor. At the conclusion of the council, the creed was adopted, with threats of banishment for those who disagreed. The council also decided that Easter would be observed on the first Sunday after the vernal equinox. In order to resolve the Meletian schism, the bishops resolved to recognize the ordinations Meletius had performed, although the clergy would be of secondary rank in the churches of their diocese. They also insisted that Meletius not ordain any new clergy. There were 20 disciplinary canons issued as well, concerning clergy misconduct, church discipline for those who had lapsed during the Diocletian persecution, church structure and oversight, the readmission of heretics and schismatics, and liturgical matters. A letter detailing the decisions of the council was sent to Egypt and presumably the rest of the churches. Constantine held a closing banquet and sent the bishops home with parting gifts according to rank, guaranteeing them safe passage home.

Constantine and the bishops had achieved their desired unity through a combination of persuasion and force. The peace was short lived, however, as often happens when there is a forced consensus. Within a decade or so, Arius had been welcomed back, Constantine was baptized on his deathbed by his Arian bishop, and a new era of disunity ensued with Arian emperors and their bishops enforcing a pro-Arian interpretation of Nicaea over the next 50 years. Athanasius faced five exiles for his staunch defense of Nicaea. A second ecumenical council was called by emperor Theodosius I at Constantinople in 381 to resolve the divisions and expand the third article of the creed to take up the subject of the Holy Spirit, where a similar fight occurred over His divinity.

Copied from: https://witness.lcms.org/2025/the-council-of-nicaea/

Worship Notes: The Athanasian Creed

Normally, the Athanasian Creed is reserved for Holy Trinity Sunday which is June 15 this year.  However, on June 15 we will celebrate the 1700^th anniversary of the Nicene Creed, and it seems appropriate that we would confess the Nicene Creed on that particular Sunday.  So that we do not overlook one of the three main creeds of the Church, we will confess the Athanasian Creed on the Festival of Pentecost (June 8).

The following is a history and an explanation of the Athanasian Creed.

The Athanasian Creed is one of the three catholic creeds.  The word catholic means universal, as in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.  The word creed comes from the Latin word credo which means “I believe.”  Luther said of this creed, “I doubt whether the New Testament church has a more important document since the Apostolic age.”

Although named for Athanasius, the bishop of Alexandria (ca. 296-373), it is almost certain that he did not write it.  Neither Athanasius nor his contemporaries ever refer to it.  But even if Athanasius did not write the creed, he certainly would have ascribed to it.  Athanasius was one of the bishops at the ecumenical Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325) which opposed the heresy of Arius (ca. 250-336).  Arius denied the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, teaching that he is of a similar substance to God the Father, but not of the same substance.  In essence, Arius claimed that Jesus Christ is not the eternal God.  This belief has resurfaced in modern-day cults such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons.  The Council of Nicaea adopted the Nicene Creed to affirm that Jesus is “God from God, Light from Light, true God from True God” and “of one being with the Father.”

The Athanasian Creed first appeared in Gaul (France) late in the 5th century.  Early in that century, Europe was invaded from the east by barbarian tribes, notably the Vandals and Goths.  This event marked the beginning of the Dark Ages.  During this time, the people and the clergy lapsed into illiteracy and ignorance of the Scriptures.  In addition, some of the invaders were Arian in their beliefs.  Out of this confusion came the need for a clear statement of faith.  The result was the Athanasian Creed.

The Athanasian Creed quickly assumed an important role in the orthodox church.  (Much of the visible church was overrun with Arianism.)  Emperor Charlemagne (ca. 742-814), in order to preserve the true Christian faith, decreed that all churchmen had to learn this creed and to be able to teach it to the laity.

The second portion of the Athanasian Creed reaffirms the Nicene Creed regarding the person of Jesus Christ.  However, it begins with a most excellent presentation on the doctrine of the Holy Trinity.  It says no more and no less than Scriptures say, letting the paradox of God’s nature stand (i.e., God is one; God is three).

Confessors of the creed should not be put off by the second to last article which says: “Those who have done good will enter eternal life, but those who have done evil will go into eternal fire” (cp also John 5:28,29).  The article does not teach salvation attained by human works, but simply reflects that our good works (or lack thereof) are evidence of God-given faith (or unbelief).  When we remember that our good works are actually God’s work through us, then we will understand this article correctly (cf Ephesians 2:8-10).  In addition, we remember that are judged based on Jesus’ merits, not our own.  We have been given the credit for Christ’s righteousness.  Therefore, we are heirs of eternal life.

This creed ought to bring us great comfort, as it speaks clearly about our God and his plan for our salvation.  Its clearness and boldness are refreshing in this age of doctrinal confusion.  This is no wishy-washy confession.  It states what the Scriptures teach – there is no God but the Lord revealed in the Scriptures, and there is no salvation outside of the name of Jesus Christ.  All who deny this deny the truth; and all who deny the truth forfeit salvation.

Finally, a study of this creed and the history which surrounds it shows how important it is for us to be familiar with the history of the Christian Church.  When we understand how Christians who have gone before us identified error and combated it, then we will better be able to do the same.

The Trinity and the Athanasian Creed

We have been going through the backgrounds of the three ecumenical Creeds of the Christian Church (Apostles' Creed, Nicene Creed, and Athanasian Creed) for our Adult Bible Class on Sundays.  All three confess the Triune God, but it is the Athanasian Creed which gives the most attention to this teaching.  While some feel it is a bit long, it is masterfully written in that it confesses the Trinity without saying too much or too little of what the Trinity is.

It would be nice to be able to compare the Trinity to something we are familiar with, but there is no analogy and nothing on earth that is like the Trinity.  It is and remains a mystery.  Not that it's a secret.  We believe in one God, and that one God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  We are baptized in (or into) the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.  (Note: That's in the "name", not "names;" for God is one.)  That is not a secret, but it remains a mystery.  In other words, we can't unravel it. 

Any efforts to try to explain or understand this results in either heresy or a grand headache.  It is best to let God reveal himself as he is than for us to try to craft God into a form we can understand.  In that case, we have invented our own god, which, then, is really no God at all.

To help understand why analogies are bad, I offer you the video below from www.LutheranSatire.com.