Nicene trinitarian theology often had deeply soteriological ramifications. Its wide ranging and even cosmological significance becomes especially clear in Gregory of Nyssa, as is argued in the following excerpt from my book Light of Light: How Trinitarian Theology Became a Thing, and Why It Matters (Cascade 2026).
The Restoration of All Things?
Paul’s first letter to the church in Corinth had long held a central place in eschatology. Origen regularly emphasized one particular passage that put salvation into a larger, cosmic perspective. Paul famously explained that just as all die with Adam, all will be made alive with Christ (1 Cor 15:22–28). This does not happen all at once. First Christ arises, then those who “belong to Christ,” i.e. Christians, we must assume. Christ will be King until all “powers and authorities,” including death, are subject to him, and then Christ will hand over the “kingdom” to God the Father. Finally, he will also be made subject to God, so that God can be “all in all” (1 Cor 15:28).
While this neatly encapsulates the history of salvation, it does seem to raise a problem in relation to trinitarian theology. If Christ is to “hand over” or “surrender” the kingdom to God the Father, how does this fit with the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, when it says of Christ that “there shall be no end to his kingdom”? This particular formulation in the creed may be directed at Marcellus of Ancyra (died c. 374), a theologian who was originally allied with Athanasius, but became known for the view that Christ only temporarily establishes his kingdom in the history of salvation. Marcellus was eager in his defense of the Nicene Creed and the view that the Son of God has the same being as his Father. According to his opponents, however, he went too far and, like Sabellius, ended up in a form of modalism where the Son of God only temporarily has an independent existence. This is why his kingdom had to end at some point. Marcellus seems to have abandoned this view at one point, but it continued to have adherents. At the same time, the Arians against Nicene theology made use of the words of Paul about the Son submitting to the Father. This submission, they argued, suggests that Christ is subordinate to God and therefore does not have the same being. Paul’s words had become problematic, to say the least.
Gregory of Nazianzus, in his theological orations, polemicizes against both views that misunderstand Paul, each in their own way. It is true that Christ “submits” to God, but he does not do so on his own behalf. When Christ submits to God, he does so on behalf of humanity, so that humanity can be saved through his submission. It is our lack of submission that he takes upon himself so that we in turn can be submitted to God through him: “As long as I refuse to submit to God,” Gregory explains, “so long is my lack of submission attributed to Christ.”1 The Kingdom of God is eternal, but Christ temporarily submits to God on behalf of humans. Christ does not cease to be God for that reason. When the restoration comes and God becomes “all in all,” it is not only God the Father but also Christ who becomes “all in all.”2
It may seem natural to conclude, like Origen, that all humans will eventually share in the Kingdom of God. This, at least, seems to be how Gregory of Nyssa understood Paul’s words that God will become “all in all.” Christ will reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet (1 Cor 15:25). Gregory explains that this must be understood in relation to the dynamics of the kingdom of God.3 The enemy is defeated when all opposition to the good is eliminated. When this has happened, Christ will hand over the kingdom to God the Father. This does not mean that Christ ceases to reign, however, but that everything is brought together with the triune God. Even God’s enemies will then receive “a trace of divinity” in them, i.e. immortality, with the result that death also disappears. Submission to God means participation in God. Through Christ, we are submitted to God, but, adds Gregory, not in the sense of a kind of “slavish subservience.” Rather, by being united with God, we come to share in a “kingship, an incorruptibility and a blessing” that “lives in us.” It is because Christ remains God while submitting to God the Father on our behalf, that he can bring all things together with God. Ultimately, therefore, no one will be excluded from salvation.4
…
As indicated, the notion of the restoration of all things was often linked to the defense of Nicene theology.6 This does not mean that a notion of the restoration of all things is the “orthodox” doctrine of salvation, or that some belief in the salvation of all is implicit in the creed. It merely shows that the theology produced in defense of the doctrine of the divinity of Christ was at times thought along these lines. It wasn’t until the Middle Ages that theology was streamlined so that a double outcome of salvation and damnation became the only tenable option. The classical creeds of the fourth century, on the other hand, allow for breadth in eschatology, which, in the end, need not be more complicated than an expectation of “the life of the world to come.”
See also: Light of Light: How Trinitarian Theology Became a Thing, and Why It Matters
1 Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 30,5.
2 Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 30,6.
3 Gregory of Nyssa, On the Final Subjection of Christ 27–28.
4 Gregory of Nyssa, On the Final Subjection of Christ 21.
5 Gregory of Nyssa, On the Soul and the Resurrection 100; 103–104.
6Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis, 823.
