subgenius wrote:madeleine wrote:...(snip)...
At any rate, Arianism was widespread and so the creed was formulated as an easy to memorize and concise doctrinal statement. It describes what was believed and taught. There isn't a strange new doctrine formulated because Constantine thought strange new doctrines would be to his political advantage. As far as I can tell, he didn't care one bit about doctrines, he just wanted a unified Christian religion. Whether or not he cared if it was Arius or all the other Bishops who prevailed, is not indicated anywhere in history.
So, this theory that Constantine sought political advantage using a doctrinal creed.... I'd like to see the historical evidence.
You may have a way different understanding of church history than the rest of the world.
Arius (c. 250-c. 336) was a popular Alexandrian priest whose theology about who Jesus was was condemned as heretical by the First Council of Nicaea in 325 and also at the First Council of Constantinople in 381.
The controversy grew until Constantine, emperor of Rome, found it necessary to intervene. Constantine was in the process of uniting the Roman Empire under his control through a civil war with Licinius, his co-emperor. With the popularity of Christianity growing due to the favor he had shown, Constantine feared that his newly-united empire would be split if the Church was split.
That is why the Nicene Creed includes phrases like "begotten, not made," and "one in substance with the Father." They were specifically disagreeing with Arius' doctrine.
Ultimately, at Constantine's referral, a bishop's council that met in Arles, Gaul (314) rejected the Donatists' argument that a morally unworthy clergyman could not perform valid ecclessial actions. A schism then occurred with the Donatists claiming that they were the only true church.
So, i consider it more plausible that in an effort to unify the empire Constantine recognized that the church would have to be unified and that was his impetus...not vice versa.
Yes, I said the council met to address contemporary issues. One of the contemporary issues of the two councils of Nicaea was the Arian heresy.
You'll note, the council was comprised entirely of bishops from the east. As I said, Arius had already been excommunicated in 321, four years before the first council at Nicaea.
"While many Syrian prelates followed the innovator [Arius], he was condemned at Alexandria in 321 by his diocesan in a synod of nearly one hundred Egyptian and Libyan bishops. Deprived and excommunicated, the heresiarch fled to Palestine. He addressed a thoroughly unsound statement of principles to Eusebius of Nicomedia, who yet became his lifelong champion and who had won the esteem of Constantine by his worldly accomplishments.[....] He must have been of great age when, after fruitless negotiations and a visit to Egypt, he appeared in 325 at Nicaea, where the confession of faith which he presented was torn in pieces. With his writings and followers he underwent the anathemas subscribed by more than 300 bishops. He was banished into Illyricum. Two prelates shared his fate, Tehonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais. His books were burnt. The Arians, joined by their old Meletian friends, created troubles in Alexandria. Eusebius persuaded Constantine to recall the exile by indulgent letters in 328; and the emperor not only permitted his return to Alexandria in 331, but ordered Athanasius to reconcile him with the Church. On the saint's refusal more disturbance ensued. The packed and partisan Synod of Tyre deposed Athanasius on a series of futile charges in 335. Catholics were now persecuted; Arius had an interview with Constantine and submitted a creed which the emperor judged to be orthodox. By imperial rescript Arius required Alexander of Constantinople to give him Communion; but the stroke of Providence defeated an attempt which Catholics looked upon as sacrilege. The heresiarch died suddenly, and was buried by his own people. "
Constantine calling the council for his own political ends has nothing to do with doctrine. Arius was an excommunicated heretic 4 years before Nicaea, which was soundly confirmed again at Nicaea. The bishops at Nicaea wrote the creed for the faithful, so that all would understand orthodox teachings, and forgo Arius' heresies. The council at Nicaea did not create new doctrines, they used the tools at their disposal to describe existing doctrines.