The Holy Spirit

Nicea is often regarded as the watershed moment when Arius was defeated and the whole Christian world held hands in blessed Christian orthodoxy. Despite the overwhelming majority condemning Arius and accepting the Creed, the aftermath was not quite so simple. In fact, a large number of bishops had problems with the homoousious in the Creed and regarded it as drifting toward Sabellianism. This can hardly be faulted to their lack of orthodoxy. In fact, various modalist-type heretics had often used exactly this term in defense and explanation of their heresy. Thus we had the more popular homoiousious, meaning "similar substance." The point of this was to emphasize that the Father and the Son are not strictly identical or merely variant forms of the same thing. However, a large group of conservative anti-modalists rejected the language because of its philosophical nature and departure from Scriptural language. It does in fact appear that Scripture had a much higher authority in the early church than modern Orthodox and Catholic scholars are willing to admit. Lucian of Antioch is one of the best examples of the conservative party. His creed is lengthy, obviously Trinitarian (he calls the Son "only-begotten God...God of God, and the three persons "in harmony one"), yet avoids some specifically Nicene language and is a little vague on the Holy Spirit, although he affirms that the Spirit really is distinct from the Father and the Son.

The conservative party should not be regarded as a heretical sect. However, subordinationist tendencies are undeniable. The work of Athanasius and the Cappadocians to explain, develop, and promote Nicene language was absolutely essential. Furthermore, the Arians gained a political advantage shortly after Nicea, as the emperors, whom the Church had relied on at Nicea, really were not equipped to make theological judgments. Although Arius himself was judged a heretic, Arian theology continued to develop in insidious ways and work itself out.

The Apollinarian heresy also arose as a way to safeguard what they believed was the Nicene doctrine from Arian objections. In order to defend against Arian's charge of a logical absurdity, Apollinarius asserted that Christ's human mind was simply replaced by the mind of the logos. Although the terms mind, will, soul, etc lack the import in our language that they had in the 4th century, the point is that Apollinarius claimed that Christ lacked something essentially human. This clearly negatively affects the doctrine of redemption.

Finally, the Pneumatomachian heresy denied the divinity of the Spirit. This party was often identified as another version of Arianism, especially by the Cappadocians and Athanasius. In particularly, Athanasius argued that only God himself can sanctify renew, mirroring his arguments for the divinity of the Son. However, the original Nicene Creed lacked a defined article on the Spirit, thus leaving the door open for the Pneumatomachians' minimalist interpretation.

Enter the Council of Constantinople. The so-called Second Ecumenical Council reaffirmed Nicea, reaffirmed the condemnation of Arius, strongly rejected all the aforementioned heresies, and added a detailed article on the Holy Spirit, who "with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified," clearly influence by Basil. C of C's clarity finally brought together the Nicene and conservative parties, preventing schism.

Unfortunately, it also weighed in on the growing claims of primacy in Rome and Constantinople, giving the latter city's bishop "primacy of honor because Constantinople is the New Rome." This tied episcopal primacy to the political importance of a city, and furthermore paid little attention to Jesus' answers to his disciples' arguments over who is the greatest. This did in fact seem to sow the seeds of schism, or at least do nothing to nip it in the bud.