In a recent post on X, progressive pastor Zach Lambert wrote, “The Nicene Creed nor the Creed of Chalcedon mention anything about sexuality.” Of course, this statement is meant to be taken as an argument for LGBT inclusion within the church, something Lambert is a notable proponent of in Evangelical-adjacent circles.
So, for Lambert, homosexuality is acceptable for orthodox Christians to support and accept into their churches since Christianity’s most basic creedal formulations nowhere mention the sexual practice. There are two implied premises in this reasoning. First, that the Nicene Creed and Chalcedonian Definition on their own define orthodoxy and, secondly, that the absence of topics addressed by Nicaea or Chalcedon means that it is unimportant and can be debated in a genuinely Christian context. Subscription to the Nicene Creed and Chalcedonian Definition now functions as the only measure by which a professing Christian’s orthodoxy is judged.[1]
1. References to the “Nicene Creed” will refer to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381, which was a reaffirmation of the Nicene Creed of 325 that included a more detailed statement about the Holy Spirit and added a statement about the church.
In this article, I will specifically address the issue of the Nicene Creed, making clear that creeds are no silver bullet for maintaining orthodoxy. Further, I hope to show that, even with the establishment of the creeds and the decisions of councils, the church has always had to return to the Scriptures to add further clarifications or to add significant portions to the established creeds.
Nicaea is Not Enough
Some in the theological retrieval movement today, however, wish to not only retrieve the Nicene Creed but also make it the essence of Christian faith. I think of unfortunate statements such as this from Rhyne Putnam: “The Nicene Creed has historically provided a baseline for Christian unity because it contains everything a person must believe in order to be properly called a Christian” (emphasis added).
The specific problem with this statement is not the assertion about the historical status of the creed as a baseline for unity. Instead, the problem lies with the statement “because it contains everything a person must believe in order to be properly called a Christian.” This is not quite true today.
2. Consider the Catechism of Catholic Church on baptism saying that baptism removes all of our sin so that there is “nothing left to efface, neither original sin nor offenses committed by our own will. . .” (978) or concerning Mary saying that, “. . .she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope, and burning charity in the Savior’s work of restoring supernatural life to souls” (968). The Council of Trent also anathematizes belief in justification by faith alone in Canon IX in the section on justification.
If someone came to my church and affirmed the Nicene Creed, I would still have questions about their understanding of the gospel, the proper place of faith and works in the Christian life, and the nature of Christ’s atonement. Nicaea is no longer a catch-all for theological orthodoxy. Roman Catholicism, for example, would also affirm Nicaea, but as Protestants, we would say that Rome is far from orthodox on other, equally crucial areas and not quite “Christian” in the proper sense.[2]
What happens after the Nicene dogma is settled in Constantinople helps us to understand that creeds, no matter how ancient or prevalent, will always need reformation and reclarification.
Creedal Conflict
3. Norman Russell, Cyril of Alexandria (New York, New York: Routledge, 2000), 33.
Conflict took place shortly after Nicene orthodoxy was reaffirmed in 381 AD. Just forty-seven years later in 428, a group came to archbishop Nestorius in Constantinople and asked his ruling on a question about the proper title of Mary. They asked whether Mary should be called “the one who gives birth to God” (Theotokos) or “the one who gives birth to man” (anthroptokos). Initially, Nestorius ruled that neither one was wrong, but that Christotokos was more accurate to the biblical language.[3]
4. Edward Schwartz, ed., Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum (Berlin, Germany: Walter De Gruyter & CO., 1933), 107, quoted in Russell, Cyril of Alexandria, 34.
This resulted in a controversy among local priests, where one priest argued in a sermon that the Marian title theotokos (God-bearer) was inappropriate. Another preacher responded, saying that “God-bearer” is accurate and that, “Emmanuel as man opened the gates of nature, but as God did not rupture the barrier of virginity . . . He entered impassibly; he came forth ineffably,” and quoting Ezekiel 44:2, he ended by saying, “Here is clear proof of holy Mary the Theotokos. Let all further disputation cease.”[4]This sermon displeased Nestorius, and it was at this point that he began to condemn the term and its meaning, even calling heretics those who hold to theotokos.
5. Aaron Riches, Ecce Homo: On the Divine Unity of Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), 23.
This controversy soon reached bishop Cyril in Alexandria, Egypt. His response to the ensuing argument is found in a letter he sent to Egyptian monks. Cyril argued that the title of theotokos is in line with the Nicene faith and that the denial of such leads to a separation of the one Lord Jesus Christ.[5]
6. Cyril of Alexandria, “Second Letter to Nestorius” in The Oecumenical Documents of the Faith, 256
Cyril began a correspondence with Nestorius, showing great respect and love for him, but also writing that “we must not divide into two Sons the One Lord Jesus Christ; for it will in no way assist the right expression of the faith so to do, even though some promise to admit a Unity of Persons. For the Scripture hath not declared the Word united to Himself a man’s person, but that He hath become Flesh.”[6]
Why did Cyril determine it was improper to imply two sons? For the Scripture hath not declared. The Nestorian controversy was one that concerned the right understanding of the teaching of the Scriptures.
7. Nestorius, “The First Letter of Nestorius to Celestine” in Christology of the Later Fathers, 348.
Nestorius, too, was concerned about understanding the Scriptures rightly. He wrote in a letter to Pope Celestine saying that some dare to call Mary theotokos “when the holy and beyond-all-praise Fathers at Nicaea said no more of the holy Virgin than that our Lord Jesus Christ was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary—not to mention the Scriptures, which everywhere, both by angels and apostles, speak of the Virgin as the mother of Christ, not of God the Word.”[7]
8. Nestorius taught that we could confess the one Lord Jesus Christ by way of conjunction between the two persons of God the Son and Jesus the man, rather than the union of God the Son’s divine and eternal nature, as Cyril taught.
9. Cyril of Alexandria, “Third Letter to Nestorius” in The Oecumenical Documents of the Faith, 262.
Now, Nestorius’s problem was that he was not reading the biblical texts together, unlike Cyril. In his third letter to Nestorius, Cyril insists that the eternal Son Himself was united to flesh, and not united to a man who had been born to Mary.[8] Instead, the body and human nature of Jesus is God the Son’s own body and human nature. Cyril’s conclusion comes from observing John 1:14 (“The Word became flesh and did tabernacle among us”) and Colossians 1:19 (“For in Christ all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell”).[9] The logic of these texts is that the Son made His habitation among human beings in flesh, and that it was the fullness of deity that dwelt in the flesh. Therefore, it is the one and the same Eternal Son who is the Lord Jesus Christ born to Mary.
This conflict concerning the nature of the incarnation eventually became so widespread throughout Christendom that the Roman emperor at the time, Theodosius II, called for a council to convene in the city of Ephesus on June 7th, 431.
10. Riches, Ecce Homo, 26.
11. The Formula of Union and Cyril’s other writings were the basis of the later Council of Chalcedon.
While this council convened somewhat irregularly due to the delay from the Roman delegate and the Syrian bishops, the result was that Nestorius and his teaching were condemned as heretical, and he stepped down from his See in Constantinople.[10] In 433, Cyril sent a letter to the Syrian Bishop John of Antioch, reconciling and affirming each other’s orthodox status; and this letter became known as the “Formula of Union”.[11]
The Necessity of Testing and Reforming Creeds by the Scriptures
What do we learn from this controversy?
First, we learn that creeds are not able to say everything for all times concerning orthodox belief. This is because (a) distance from creeds can obscure their original language and ideas, and (b) new questions will be asked that will necessitate more precise language about other topics.
Concerning point (a), think of the Eternal Relations of Authority and Submission debates; One side wrongly affirms that God the Son is eternally subordinate to God the Father, while the other side rightly affirms that Father and Son are equal in essence and therefore do not differ in authority. Advocates for Classical Theism could not simply insert the Nicene Creed to fix everything. They had to reintroduce terminology that had been lost, explaining things like the eternal generation of the Son, divine simplicity, and so on. About point (b), note the very controversy we have considered: Nestorius did not set out to be a heretic. In fact, he fully subscribed to the Nicene faith as well! To think correctly about Christ’s human and divine natures required more precision than what Nicaea offered. Everyone who affirms that the only baseline of Christian unity should be the Nicene Creed misses this glaring fact: many later heretics fully affirmed the Nicene Creed.
Secondly, we learn that the Nicene Creed by itself cannot secure and maintain orthodoxy. Again, the Nestorian controversy proves this. Even with the Council of Ephesus in 431, another council was necessary in 451 that convened at Chalcedon. The Chalcedonian council did not produce a new creed, but rather a definition that clarified the Nicene faith and teaching. Creeds will continue to need clarification, precision, and addition.
Additionally, we can observe in our own day of the need for theological precision and clarity concerning themes lacking in early, ecumenical creeds, such as anthropology. The confusion over human beings and sexuality necessitated both the Danvers’ Statement on complementarianism and the Nashville Statement on sexuality because the Nicene Creed was not sufficient to address this issue of orthodoxy. In fact, there are even those who wish to hold to the Nicene Creed while propagating a perverted sexual ethic.
Virginia Theological Seminary studied the population of their seminarians who self-identify as LGBT and found that “the shape of their theology is creedal” and that they tend to be more grounded in tradition. This shows that someone can claim to be a Christian, affirm the historic Creeds such as Nicaea, while also affirming a sexual ethic that those who affirmed Nicaea would have rejected.
Both points demonstrate that creeds will always need to be clarified, defined, and reformed by the teaching of Scripture, including the teaching of Scripture summarized by the Nicene Creed. It could not be the lone ballast of orthodoxy even in its own day. There were still people who could subscribe to the Nicene Creed and misunderstand it, even important and intelligent people like the very Archbishop of Constantinople!
Conclusion
Creeds are helpful and necessary, but only insofar as they clarify and define the teaching of the Scriptures. Once creeds and their language start to lose purchase with people in the church, or do not clearly address the issue of the day, it is important to further define or update them.
The lesson we learn from Nestorius is that no creed—including the Nicene Creed—can be a silver bullet for maintaining orthodoxy. We will always need to hold fast to the teachings of Scripture to define orthodoxy and to defend against false teaching. The lesson we learn from Nestorius is that no creed—including the Nicene Creed—can be a silver bullet for maintaining orthodoxy. We will always need to hold fast to the teachings of Scripture to define orthodoxy and to defend against false teaching. Otherwise, a Nicene-only approach to orthodoxy will find us with some strange bedfellows such as Roman Catholics, LGBT-affirming progressive Christians, or maybe Nestorius himself.
Scripture must remain our sole and sufficient authority for orthodox Christian belief. Indeed, it is from Scripture that creeds such as the Nicene Creed and other aspects of the Christian tradition derive their authority. They are only helpful insofar as they properly articulate the teaching already found in Scripture.
May we have our heads in the Word of God, constantly reading, searching, and reforming ourselves and our minds so that we may clearly deliver its life-giving teaching to future generations.
