One of the primary metaphysical problems was the nature of Jesus Christ. Most Christians agreed He was God, though in human form. The problem here was a rather subtle one: Being God, Christ was not only unlimited in scope & power, but unlimitable, as well; yet, He had been a man, which necessitated that limitations be placed upon Him. (For example, how could He be infinite in extent, if He was in one place at one time, in His mortal body?)
Now, a point to be considered is that early Christianity had been mostly an urban religion, & hence it attracted a good number of highly educated believers. Especially in the east, these people were Greeks, or Hellenized Egyptians, Syrians or Libyans, many of them educated in philosophy, geometry, metaphysics, acoustics, etc. according to the standards of a classical Greek education. Thus, they considered these issues in the tradition of Socrates, Plato & Aristotle, whose works — and methods of analysis — they knew well.
Thus, subtle philosophical points such as this were discussed at length, & debated, in the form of councils (on those rare occasions when they could afford to gather in one place) or by correspondence, in letters. (Some of the earliest of these letters, the Epistles, would later be included in the New Testament.)
This may seem a rather trivial point, but it was taken quite seriously by those debating this matter. Those who saw Christ as having been fully divine, denounced Paul & his followers as blasphemers who denied Christ's divinity; but by the same token, Paul & his followers considered the rest to be blaspheming, by falsely elevating Christ to Godhood.
For almost a century, this issue remained a largely theological one, however, & as such did not have a great impact on the Church as a whole. It was only once Christianity became a publicly-acceptable religion, & began growing in numbers, that it engendered conflict.
Beyond this, there was not a lot of uniformity among Gnostics. Some of them were ascetics, who lived in secluded hermitages or (for lack of a better word) "communes," which would later inspire the hermetic & monastic movements. Others did not remove themselves from society. Most Gnostics had a two-tiered system of beliefs; at one level, they had a doctrine which was in written form & which was publicly disclosed; but at another level, was a separate, secret set of doctrines which was passed on only by oral tradition, to those who had demonstrated mastery of the primary level. It was this secret level of knowledge which, most properly, should be called Gnosticism. Christian Gnostics claimed that this secret, oral-tradition doctrine, was first delivered by Jesus Christ to his disciples, who passed it on only to their most trusted & sincere followers, and so on.
Most Gnostics did not believe in the humanity of Christ; since Christ was good, He could not have come in physical form (since physical forms were evil). Further, they generally asserted that He had not died on the cross, but rather, His spirit fled, just prior to what would have been the moment of His death. Thus, His death was largely just a symbolic act, a "living example" of compassion & self-sacrifice.
Gnosticism was prominent among the most educated early Christians, although some of them abandoned their beliefs in intermediate deities, over time, & as such was a threat to the new growing faith. Early on, the majority of the Church condemned Gnosticism as heresy, & while a few prominent Church figures were Gnostics, there was never any serious, cohesive Gnostic movement in the early Church. Gnosticism was never very popular, & since most of them were scholars, they frequently argued fine points about their doctrine & metaphysics; rarely did any two Gnostics agree completely in all their beliefs. This, along with its denial of the humanity & physicality of Christ and their assertion that His death did not have any true metaphysical, salvation effect, relegated Gnosticism to the fringes of Christianity.
Even so, Arius & his followers were in the minority. Alexander, patriarch of Alexandria, in 323 & 324 hosted synods or councils of bishops from across northern Africa, which denounced Arius & his doctrine. Arius fled to Palestine, where he was sheltered by another presbyter who had sided with him. A competing synod in Palestine reinstated Arius & invalidated the decision of the Alexandrian synods.
In any event, by the early 320's, Constantine had made himself the sole Emperor, having defeated his last rival, Lucinius. Aware of some of the theological contention in the Church, especially in the east, Constantine was concerned that the Church might fracture, and thus dilute his support. Not fully understanding the issue, he invited the bishops, presbyters & patriarchs to meet at Nicæa, to resolve their differences, suggesting that it was merely a semantic matter & of no real importance.
Constantine couldn't have been more wrong. The matter was considered gravely important by leading Churchmen; they didn't consider it just a semantic distinction. What the Emperor had planned as a meeting to set aside differences, proved to be anything but.
This compromise position, however, while many seemed agreeable to it, was not acceptable to the small number of men who adhered strictly to either side, so it was turned down. Instead, the majority sided with Athanasius & Alexander, and the Council voted to denounce Arius & his doctrine. Athanasius devised the notion of the Trinity, in order to explain the apparent differentiation seen in God (as the Father, as the Son, & as the Holy Spirit). These three Beings are separate, yet one. Each is fully divine & unbegotten, but in action, each is distinct. More specifically, Jesus Christ was both fully divine & fully human. (This brief statement about the Trinity probably does it a disservice, and most likely would not pass muster by the standards of most Churches; however, I only have just so much space, & not a lot of theological expertise, so it will have to do, for the purposes of this essay.)
Another action taken during this Council was a formal denunciation of Gnosticism, as well as some other minor heresies which had cropped up here and there. The Council was not as contentious an affair as many now think of it — for the most part, on all issues but the nature of Christ, there was an enormous amount of agreement among those present, and remarkable uniformity of thought.
While the majority of Churchmen were satisfied with the results of the Council of Nicæa, Arius & his followers were angry, and so was the Emperor. He had not wished either party to be denounced; his goal had been to unify, not divide, & the Council had not lived up to this. Constantine tried in vain after the Council to reconcile the two parties.
The situation again became problematic, when some Arianists took refuge with Emperor Constantine, & he accepted them as advisors. The majority of Christians, holding to the orthodox view (now known as the Trinity), were horrified. Once again, Constantine appears to have underestimated the issue. Arianists were persecuted more intensely. Arius, already elderly by the time his teachings had become cause for conflict, died, though others carried on his teachings.
After Constantine, though, Arianism fell from imperial favor. A series of Emperors who were either not Christian, or who were unconcerned with Christianity, came and went. The Church was left to deal with the Arian heresy, on its own. And they did so, rather roughly.
Later in the 4th century, another Council was held, this time at Constantinople; once again, Arianism was condemned, & its adherents were excommunicated. At this Council, a new Creed was composed, declaring the most fundamental orthodox beliefs; it came to be called the Nicene Creed, since it was the product of doctrine laid out by Athanasius, & ratified by the Church, originally at the First Council of Nicæa. Eastern Emperor Theodosius sided fully with the orthodox view & lent his support to the effort to stamp out Arianism; he also effectively made orthodox Christianity the "official" religion of the Empire (even if he never actually issued an edict saying this).
Arianism did not last long after Theodosius. In addition to being unacceptable to the majority of Christians, it posed more questions about Christ's nature than it answered, so even its adherents eventually saw little value in it. Other doctrines, both orthodox & heretical, would address these deficiencies, as the centuries rolled by.
That is, it was at this Council that the notions of orthodoxy & heresy were firmly, & formally, established. The Council set a precedent for asserting the primacy of one doctrine over another, & the need of the Church to establish a single, cohesive doctrine. Gnosticism, as well as a few other "fringe" heresies, were formally rejected (in addition to Arianism). Most of these would remain αναθεμα (anathema, or "unacceptable"), down to modern times.
The concept of the Trinity, while not original to Athanasius or the Council of Nicæa, was ratified at Nicæa & eventually accepted as "truth" by the Church as a whole. Lastly, the First Council of Nicæa was the first time that the entire Church came together, in one place, to address doctrinal issues. (The western Church was only poorly represented, owing to the fact that Nicæa was in Anatolia & a long way away, but the Pope sent legates, & there were some western bishops & presbyters there.)
In many ways, the Council of Nicæa represents the foundation of a true Church, with a code of doctrine agreed upon by its most learned elders, & a resolve to ensure that this "true" doctrine took precedence over others.
In the west, heresy was less common, & hardly ever politically-connected. What heretics there were, clearly were "outsiders," not part of the mainstream. Among the most important heretical movements in the west was the rise of Catharism. A Gnostic-inspired heresy, Catharism originated (probably) in modern Bulgaria, & meandered through Hungary into Germany, then into France. It was largely a quiet, "underground" movement, with only a few members (Cathars shunned worldly contact, & the elite Cathars were celibate, so its appeal was limited at best). But in southern France in the 12th century, in the borderlands with Italy, in and around the town of Albi, Catharism found a home. Many in the area joined the movement, although most were only laymen, & only their leaders, the elite, were ascetic. Pope Innocent III was alarmed at this & denounced them. When the Albigensians (as the Cathars of that area were known) refused to give up their heresy, the Pope called for a crusade against them. Within a couple of decades, the Albigensians were wiped out.
Similarly, in Bohemia, the Hussite movement, established by Jan Hus, who preached against the power of the Church as well as against the aristocracy, caused a full-blown military conflict in the 15th century. The Hussite Wars ended with the reformers defeated, although they had managed to gain some sympathy, & some of Hus's ideas may have inspired later, more successful reformers, such as Zwingli & possibly Luther.
In any event, while the Council of Nicæa did not do away with heresy, it established what heresy meant, & established a precedent for the Church to decide what would be acceptable doctrine & what was unacceptable.
Back up to Dennis's Home Page.