The central issue in the Arian-Nicene controversy was about the relationship between God the Father and God the Son.[1]The controversy was particularly between Arian and Athanasius, both theological thespians in the advent of Christianity. The deep divisions shown by both parties were due to the need by Emperor Constantine to establish a single Christian ideology. The differences resulted in the establishment of the First Council of Nicaea, partly to sit and try to get a common ideology of the theological issue. The council comprised of theologians and other church dignitaries with the intention to deliberate and reach a common doctrine for the christen faithful. From the first council set up by Constantine, there had been a total of 21 councils, all trying to build a common doctrine for the christen church. All of these councils were involved in one way or the other in trying to find a common Christian doctrine.
When Christianity was introduced in the Roman Empire, adherents had not developed any doctrine which would identify their religion. At the same time, there were too many issues regarding the interpretations of various issues, which they needed to find common ground. Issues emerged when theologians tried to interpret the divine and human aspects of Christ. That was hard to do without making references to the pagan ideologies.
One of the issues that resulted from the interpretation of Christ was how to exhibit the image of God. One of the earlier theologians, whose views were shared by Arian, had taught that the Father and the Son were a single entity, something which received a lot of opposition from other parties. Athanasius and some of the people under his leadership argued that there were three persons in one God. These contravened the beliefs of many others who had said that there was only one single entity on the person of God. Arius accused Athanasius and his group of trying to create extra entities out of one God, something which had been associated with paganism.
The Nicene Council coined a concept that was not supported by the bible teachings that Christ the Son was sharing the same substance with Christ the Father, and there it was impossible to treat the two as different4. Arius and his team disagreed, arguing that Christ the Son, the Father and the Holy Spirit were materially different from each other and would not be presented as one. Arius argued that Christ the Father created the son, and that is the synopsis. Arian then wrote a letter explaining the same to Athanasius and his group. Arius and his followers believed that if the Father was equal to the Son, then they could have more than one God, which was against the Christian doctrine. He raised all those issues in his letter, defending his position with the hope of convincing the other side.
The debate as to the nature and difference between Christ the Father and Christ, the son, continues into the fifth century and beyond. In particular, it coincided the period of Emperor Constantine, whose efforts in trying to resolve the controversy and establish a single Christian doctrine did not bore any fruit.
The debate, even though no longer controversial continued to the latter years. Evidently, today’s Christians may have adopted the Arians believes, where they believed that Christ the Father, the son and the holy are distinct but closely related. Christians pray and make references to the three, and it has been a common doctrine across the world. The controversy was important in finding common ground. Despite resulting in serious issues, which were debated for centuries, it was instrumental in making everything clear, paving the way for what most christens practice today. The acceptance of the Arians concept (those who followed the beliefs of Arius and his followers), seems to have convinced a majority of theologians of that time, and that is the reason they accepted it. Today, even though the debate lives on, it does not exist in those who ascribe to the Christian faith, but rather to pagans and members of other religious denominations.