Question: I was in a debate with a Buddhist and they said their complaint with Christianity was Christ was not deified until 325 by Constantine at the first Council of Nicaea, in order to unify Rome under one religion and by proxy increase his control and power. What is the best response to this argument?
Answer: Greetings, and thank you for your question.
The argument from your Buddhist friend is a very common argument brought up against Christianity. I am not sure of its origin, but it is patently false and exhibits, at best, an extreme ignorance on history (particularly the history of the church), or at worst, explicit dishonesty. First, let's look (briefly) at the history of the Council of Nicaea, and second, at the claim of Jesus' divinity.
When I say your Buddhist friend's argument is patently false, I am referring to his/her conclusion. The premises are true. There was a (first) Council of Nicaea that was convened by Emperor Constantine in the year 325. Constantine did want to unify the empire under the Christian religion, but he did not have a "predetermined theological" agenda to pursue. As a relatively new convert (if one is inclined, as I am, to believe that Constantine's conversion was genuine), Constantine was disturbed by the growing division within the church over what was then known as the Arian Controversy. While Constantine, as emperor, convened the council, there is no evidence that he exerted any influence in the decision reached by the 318 bishops in attendance. The defective Arian theology was defeated and a creedal formula was written that summarized the catholic (i.e., universal) Christian faith. The original creed (added below) was modified in 381 to add a clause for the Holy Spirit.
We believe in one God, the Father almighty, Maker of heaven and earth,
and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten,
begotten of the Father before all ages.
Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not made,
of one essence with the Father by whom all things were made;
who for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven,
and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became man.
And He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate,
and suffered, and was buried.
And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures;
and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father;
and He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead;
whose Kingdom shall have no end.
And in the Holy Spirit.
But as for those who say, There was when He was not, and, before being born He was not, and that He came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is from a different hypostasis or substance, or is created, or is subject to alteration or change – these the Catholic Church anathematizes.
That last paragraph is important because it shows how the council of bishops recognized that the Arian heresy was a denial of the deity of Jesus Christ, the second Person of the Trinity, the Son of God, and true and eternal God. The Arian heresy argued that Jesus was God's first and greatest created being through whom all other things were made, but He Himself was not God. This is reflected in the phrase, "There was when He was not, and being born, He was not, and that He came into existence out of nothing. A mediating position was also debated and rejected that argued that Jesus was of a similar substance with the Father. The council rejects that as well when they anathematized all who hold that "the Son of God is from a different hypostasis or substance."
The point being, the argument that Constantine declared Jesus to be divine at the Council of Nicaea is a complete fabrication. He called the council, but the bishops defended and set forth the orthodox doctrine of Christ and rejected the heretical views of Arius and his followers.
Second, let's look at the claim of the divinity of Jesus. One of the reasons that arguments, like the one put forth from your Buddhist friend, still subsist is because they fail to understand the nature and development of Christian theology. The foundation of all Christian theology is the Holy Scripture. Most people who go by the name "Christian" would agree with this. However, if you were to look at Scripture, you would quickly see that it's not arranged like a set of propositional statements. The Scriptures are, for the most part, laid out as a historical narrative. There are also sections of poetry and wisdom, sections of prophecy and apocalyptic writings, and sections of epistolary writings. The Scriptures, though they are the inspired, inerrant, and infallible word of God, are written in such a way that centers on a group of people in the ancient near east, the Israelites, who are actually descended from a Mesopotamian man named Abram. His descendants become a numerous nation who were enslaved in Egypt, liberated by the hand of God, and formed into a special nation in a land promised to Abram centuries earlier. This nation grew to the point where they had a series of kings descended from one who was called "a man after God's own heart." It was promised that this king, David, would have a Son whose kingdom would never end. This nation, due to its sin and covenant breaking, was punished and exiled. Centuries later, this Davidic King was born in, as Paul calls it, the "fullness of time." Jesus, the Son of Abraham, Son of David, Son of God, whose life is chronicled in the Gospels, was the promised Messiah. He was put to death as predicted in the Scriptures. He was raised from the dead, as predicted in the Scriptures, and He ascended into heaven and from there, He promised He would return in glory. The rest of the NT (Acts, the epistles, and Revelation) flesh out what the life of Jesus means for all of us.
Now, as I briefly summarized the plot line of Scripture, you can probably already see some of the elements of the Nicene Creed echoed. That's the point of the Creed, to summarize the teachings of Scripture. Because Scripture comes to us as a narrative and not as a systematic theology textbook, it became necessary for the Church to summarize the teachings of Scripture in Creedal formulae such as the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed. Later on in the Reformation, longer, more robust Confessions of Faith were formulated, among the most enduring of those confessions are the Augsburg Confession (Lutheran), the Belgic Confession (Reformed), the 39 Articles (Anglican), and the Westminster Confession (Presbyterian).
Now, what comes next is very important to understand. These Creeds and Confessions almost always were formulated in response to error and heresy, or in response to charges of error and heresy. The Nicene Creed (the creed under consideration) was formulated in response to the Arian heresy. The Augsburg Confession and the Belgic Confession were formulated in response to charges of heresy from the Roman Catholic Church against the Protestant Reformers. Why this is important to know and understand is people will look at the Nicene Creed and see that it was formulated in 325 and will (falsely) conclude that in the year 325, the Church declared the divinity of Jesus Christ. My point is that the Church has always believed in the divinity of Jesus Christ, and when the Arian heresy was becoming more popular, mobilized to defend the truth of orthodox Christian doctrine. The Apostolic doctrine, as summarized in the Creeds is all taught and can be found in the Holy Scriptures.
When it comes to the deity of Jesus Christ, this is suggested in the OT and becomes much more clear in the NT. There are many places in the NT where we see a "high Christology," but the Gospel of John is the best place to see a sustained defense of the deity of Jesus Christ. The apostle John gives us his purpose for writing it when he says, "And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name" (John 20:30-31 NKJV). I would strongly encourage your Buddhist friend to read the Gospel of John, for it is clear that there is a strong connection between believing certain things about Jesus and eternal life.
I hope this helps.
