The Nicene Creed - line by line

[~Anastasia~]

I've also always seen it as "Begotten, not created" as one thought emphasizing that Jesus always has been, and never was not in existence.

Finally getting an idea of "the begottenness" of Christ Jesus, and the "processing" of the Holy Spirit - both sourced from the Father - is what helped me to finally understand God as Trinity. One God, Three Persons. Before that I acknowledged all three, but honestly my mind could do nothing else except separate them into three gods. It was quite a dilemma for me. I don't know if other people have that same problem or not. I know I could never truly admit it until I got the beginnings of a real understanding in place of that, though.

I'm still not completely 100% comfortable existentially with an eternal sense of it, but I think I'm about 98% of the way there. I have it mentally, at least. But really appreciating it fully without my mind doing things like making "three gods" was not easy for me.

Maybe I'm too concrete in my thinking. Or maybe other people have that problem as well.

 

[Tallguy88]

I don't think we ever will fully understand it this side of heaven.

 

[seeingeyes]

I don't think we ever will fully understand it this side of heaven.

Which means that the people who wrote it didn't understand it either...


Ok, I'm done, Ky!

 

[~Anastasia~]

Which means that the people who wrote it didn't understand it either...


Ok, I'm done, Ky!

LOL seeing!

I should have been more specific. I was just reading in another thread where CryptoLutheran quoted St. Augustine I believe - something about theology being man's attempt to say the least wrong things about God.

I will say this. I am NOT saying that I understand God - in any sense. LOL, noooooo! What I am saying is that I finally understood what some people said about this part of the Nicene Creed (and about the Son being begotten of the Father) and understanding a smidgen of what men have said - has helped it make sense.

If the Creed is true - and I have to accept that it is, and I certainly have nothing else to offer in its place - then what I understand so far is good at least.

But you certainly have a point, seeing.

You always do!

 

[ViaCrucis]

I really wanted to talk about the Procession of the Spirit in my last post about the Spirit as Giver-of-life, so I guess I can now.

So some thoughts I have:

I'll leave the Filioque issue for later in this post.

The Spirit proceeds, ἐκπορευόμενον (ekporeuomenon), from the Father. The Spirit is "out from" the Father, "comes from" "journeys from" "is from" the Father.

I like how we also say "spiration" as a synonym for "procession" in reference to the Spirit. I think it really hammers down the idea, the Spirit is breathed, spirated, from the Father.

We have spoken of the Son as generated by the Father, and known this reality to be eternal. Likewise now we speak of the Spirit's spiration from the Father, and this too is eternal. We are not speaking (at least chiefly anyway) of the Spirit's coming on Pentecost, we are speaking of that interior, mysterious, ineffable reality of the Three-and-One.

It is the Father who begets, and it is the Father who spirates.

We have called Him (the Holy Spirit) Life-giver or Giver-of-life; He is the eternal, vivifying Breath of God.

In the text of Genesis 2 Adam is formed from dust and it says God "breathed in his nostrils and he became a living, breathing being". This is an awesome picture of this reality I think--the Father spirates, the Spirit is spirated, and there is life. What was but dust a moment ago is now living, and breathing.

The concept of breath in the ancient world, or at least in the Hebrew conception, was utterly vital. The difference between a corpse and a living thing is the breath, or in Hebrew nephesh. Living things breathe, dead things don't. This was the Hebrew concept of "the soul", the basic reality of a thing having breath in its lungs. That idea of breath is carried also in the Greek word psuche.

And of course the very word "spirit" itself means "breath", as does the corresponding Hebrew and Greek (ruach and pneuma respectively). So when we see in Genesis 1 the "Divine Wind", the "Spirit of God", "hovering" over the primordial abyss this is the imagery we are to consider. And of course Jesus is playful with this in the third chapter of John's Gospel when He talks about those born of the Spirit and speaks of the wind "you neither know where it came from or where it's going".

I think it will be important even here to mention this is the Spirit, that if we have in us, then "He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to [our] mortal bodies". That what is sown soulish is raised S/spiritual. But that would start to take us to what is mentioned several lines later.

I'm going to leave talk about the Filioque in my next post rather than cram everything up in one.

--

 

[ViaCrucis]

I suppose we really need to address that giant elephant in the room. That single Latin word filioque. Translated into English as "and the Son", that single word which almost singularly divides the entire Church on earth between East and West.

The controversy over this one word is literally the subject of volumes of books. But what it has meant has resulted in numerous charges thrown both directions.

Those who say the Spirit proceeds from the Father only have charged the Filioquists of arguing that the Spirit is subordinate to the Father and the Son; a sort of Diarchy of Father and Son with the subordinate Spirit.

Those who say the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son have charged non-Filioquists of arguing that the Father, in a sense, has "two sons", or that the Son and Spirit are subordinate to the Father.

And thus the fundamental theological confusion and issues have largely been charges of Subordinationism--a long rejected theological framework of speaking of the Trinity; and the issue of Triadology; the very way we speak of God's Three-ness and the interior perichoresis of the Three.

In the West Trinitarian language focuses first on the Nature, the Essence of the Godhead, namely the Oneness of God's Being; and then goes on to speak of the Three sharing in that singular, undivided Essence.

This has at times perhaps resulted in some being confused. For example some may imagine a kind of "four-ness", particularly if one takes something like the Scutum Fidei too literally:

It could be misconstrued as though "God" here is a sort of "fourth thing" that is then extended to the Three. By abstracting the Divine Essence out from the concreteness of the Three, we may in some sense be de-personalizing what we mean by "Deity".

Whereas in the East the focus has been to speak of the Three and the inter-relatedness, "their" perichoresis, and to speak of the Divine Unity out from the Three.

I won't attempt here to speak on behalf of the Eastern Theological tradition, but my own thoughts are something like this:

Rather than speaking of an abstract notion of the Divine Essence which the Three then consequently share; it may indeed be very preferable instead to begin first with the concreteness of the Three--to speak definitively of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. That is, we must first speak of the Father, when we say "the Father is God" we are not saying "There is a substance which the Father possesses which makes Him God", we are instead saying the very reality, the very nature, essence (ousia) that makes God God is, indeed, the Father. And it is from there that we then speak of the Eternal Generation of the Son, the Son is God not because He "possesses" a substance that makes Him God, but because He has His eternal origin in and from the Father--with neither beginning nor end--and He is therefore God from God, Light from Light, true God of true God.

And thus to speak of the Divine Nature or the Divine Essence cannot be an abstracted thing, but must be more concrete than that.

Which then makes the non-Filioquist position a far more understandable one. For here we speak of the Father, the Unoriginated Source and Origin, the very "Fount of Deity". And there is His Word and Spirit. Not in a subordinate sense, but rather we must speak of the Three, and then it is actually there in the Threeness we then speak of the Oneness.

God is One because God is Three.

Though, again, my own thoughts here. I don't regard the Filioque bad. I think the intent the West had by speaking of the Spirit's procession from both Father and Son was most indeed good. So I don't have a problem confessing the Creed with the Filioque--and I do whenever it is recited in church. The Western Church had been speaking of the double-procession of the Spirit for hundreds of years before the Filioque's sorta-kinda-official inclusion between the 9th and 11th centuries. And it wasn't necessarily a huge problem back when St. Augustine and many of the Latin Fathers were talking like that. Because they were doubly safeguarding the Divinity of the Son--Arianism remained very alive and well in the West among the Goths, in particularly the Visigothic Kingdom in Spain.

And also, it should not be itself a problem to speak of the Spirit as proceeding from the Son, though it largely depends on what we mean by this.

Needless to say. It's kind of a big deal even to this day.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[MoreCoffee]

I suppose we really need to address that giant elephant in the room. That single Latin word filioque. Translated into English as "and the Son", that single word which almost singularly divides the entire Church on earth between East and West.

The controversy over this one word is literally the subject of volumes of books. But what it has meant has resulted in numerous charges thrown both directions.

Those who say the Spirit proceeds from the Father only have charged the Filioquists of arguing that the Spirit is subordinate to the Father and the Son; a sort of Diarchy of Father and Son with the subordinate Spirit.

Those who say the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son have charged non-Filioquists of arguing that the Father, in a sense, has "two sons", or that the Son and Spirit are subordinate to the Father.

And thus the fundamental theological confusion and issues have largely been charges of Subordinationism--a long rejected theological framework of speaking of the Trinity; and the issue of Triadology; the very way we speak of God's Three-ness and the interior perichoresis of the Three.

In the West Trinitarian language focuses first on the Nature, the Essence of the Godhead, namely the Oneness of God's Being; and then goes on to speak of the Three sharing in that singular, undivided Essence.

This has at times perhaps resulted in some being confused. For example some may imagine a kind of "four-ness", particularly if one takes something like the Scutum Fidei too literally:

It could be misconstrued as though "God" here is a sort of "fourth thing" that is then extended to the Three. By abstracting the Divine Essence out from the concreteness of the Three, we may in some sense be de-personalizing what we mean by "Deity".

Whereas in the East the focus has been to speak of the Three and the inter-relatedness, "their" perichoresis, and to speak of the Divine Unity out from the Three.

I won't attempt here to speak on behalf of the Eastern Theological tradition, but my own thoughts are something like this:

Rather than speaking of an abstract notion of the Divine Essence which the Three then consequently share; it may indeed be very preferable instead to begin first with the concreteness of the Three--to speak definitively of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. That is, we must first speak of the Father, when we say "the Father is God" we are not saying "There is a substance which the Father possesses which makes Him God", we are instead saying the very reality, the very nature, essence (ousia) that makes God God is, indeed, the Father. And it is from there that we then speak of the Eternal Generation of the Son, the Son is God not because He "possesses" a substance that makes Him God, but because He has His eternal origin in and from the Father--with neither beginning nor end--and He is therefore God from God, Light from Light, true God of true God.

And thus to speak of the Divine Nature or the Divine Essence cannot be an abstracted thing, but must be more concrete than that.

Which then makes the non-Filioquist position a far more understandable one. For here we speak of the Father, the Unoriginated Source and Origin, the very "Fount of Deity". And there is His Word and Spirit. Not in a subordinate sense, but rather we must speak of the Three, and then it is actually there in the Threeness we then speak of the Oneness.

God is One because God is Three.

Though, again, my own thoughts here. I don't regard the Filioque bad. I think the intent the West had by speaking of the Spirit's procession from both Father and Son was most indeed good. So I don't have a problem confessing the Creed with the Filioque--and I do whenever it is recited in church. The Western Church had been speaking of the double-procession of the Spirit for hundreds of years before the Filioque's sorta-kinda-official inclusion between the 9th and 11th centuries. And it wasn't necessarily a huge problem back when St. Augustine and many of the Latin Fathers were talking like that. Because they were doubly safeguarding the Divinity of the Son--Arianism remained very alive and well in the West among the Goths, in particularly the Visigothic Kingdom in Spain.

And also, it should not be itself a problem to speak of the Spirit as proceeding from the Son, though it largely depends on what we mean by this.

Needless to say. It's kind of a big deal even to this day.

-CryptoLutheran

I always had misgivings about the triangle thing. It's too much like a proof from geometry. God's being is something of a mystery in that we only know what he's told us. Thus we know that there is one God. We also know that the Father is God, and the Word (Christ) is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God. We also know that the Word became man (a male human being) and that the Holy Spirit is with, among, and in the faithful. There is also the strong implication that Father and Son are distinct persons and the same is true of the Holy Spirit, he being distinct from the Father and the Son.

That's like the triangle thing but not exactly like it ... anyway.

The filioque (and the son) relates to the "procession" of the Spirit. There's not a whole lot of information in my bible on procession. ...

 

[~Anastasia~]

I suppose one reason for the Scutum Fidei triangle is an attempt to show the Persons as equal to one another? And it gives a nice little series of true sentences. But I have to agree with VC that it seems to present a fourth "Otherness" that is God. As an illustration of the Holy Trinity ... well, I liked it when I first saw it but now I'm a lot less comfortable with what it can also imply.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

The only procession that I see in my bible is the procession of the river of life from the one throne of God and the lamb.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The only procession that I see in my bible is the procession of the river of life from the one throne of God and the lamb.

There is one verse that refers the word to the Spirit. Here it is

When the Advocate comes whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father, he will testify to me. (John 15:26 NAB)​

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Also from John ... 5:43 the Son came in the Father's name ....10:30 the Father and Son are one ... 14:26 the Father sent the Holy Spirit in the Son's name .... Spirit testifies of the Son as the means of God eventually reaching mankind as the Spirit.

 

[hedrick]

The biggest problem with the triangle is that it makes the Trinity look like three of the same thing. I prefer the Eastern idea of the Father as source, and the Son and Holy Spirit coming from him in different ways (eternally, of course). That recognizes that each has a unique role, which of course is the whole point of the Trinity.

 

[~Anastasia~]

The biggest problem with the triangle is that it makes the Trinity look like three of the same thing. I prefer the Eastern idea of the Father as source, and the Son and Holy Spirit coming from him in different ways (eternally, of course). That recognizes that each has a unique role, which of course is the whole point of the Trinity.

I actually had something I wanted to post and ask about that, but I think I will follow my own request and leave it until after we finish discussing the Creed. It does have to do with different Church's way of looking at the Trinity, and I was concerned that getting too far into it would derail the thread. But I want to come back to it as soon as we are done.

I think you're right though, that the distinct roles are masked by that particular illustration.

 

[rick357]

The biggest problem with the triangle is that it makes the Trinity look like three of the same thing. I prefer the Eastern idea of the Father as source, and the Son and Holy Spirit coming from him in different ways (eternally, of course). That recognizes that each has a unique role, which of course is the whole point of the Trinity.

Funny on anouther thread I spoke about the word and breath coming from God and being one with him...being him...yet differant in porpuse and was told I was not a trinitarian...it was news to me.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I believe in one God, Father Almighty, Creator of
heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of
God, begotten of the Father before all ages;

Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten,
not created, of one essence with the Father
through 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.

He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate,
and suffered and was buried;

And He rose on the third day,
according to the Scriptures.

He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father;

And He will come again with glory to judge the living
and dead. His kingdom shall have no end.

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Creator of life,
Who proceeds from the Father [and the Son],

Who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified

 

[~Anastasia~]

Who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified

I'm not sure how much I have to say about this part - except that it's funny, in my earlier Christian life, I never considered "worshipping" the Holy Spirit. In some denominations, it seems He was regarded a bit more as an impersonal power-source. But to begin to appreciate the Holy Spirit as a Person Himself, and to realize that He (as God) is worthy to be worshipped and glorified, puts is back into perspective for me.

Not that I'm blaming the pastors before - I think sometimes it's difficult to understand the Trinity, and I think they were afraid of not giving enough honor to either the Father and/or the Son. Their intentions may have been good, is what I mean to say.

But I can appreciate the Holy Spirit so much more to think of Him as a Person. And what was most shocking to me was the day that I realized that what I received "from God" in the way of being able to understand Scriptures, for example, and comfort I had received, and all such interactions with God in prayer, were likely the Holy Spirit. That was a real revelation to me. In which case it does make it easy to accept that He is to be worshipped and glorified.

I think the intent of the Creed, actually, was perhaps to make sure we understood that the Holy Spirit IS God, and not something that is subordinate or substandard, and worthy of worship Himself.

It is also a small reminder ... "together" ... that also makes me think of how they all share in the same Essence, undivided.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I'm not sure how much I have to say about this part - except that it's funny, in my earlier Christian life, I never considered "worshipping" the Holy Spirit. In some denominations, it seems He was regarded a bit more as an impersonal power-source. But to begin to appreciate the Holy Spirit as a Person Himself, and to realize that He (as God) is worthy to be worshipped and glorified, puts is back into perspective for me.

Not that I'm blaming the pastors before - I think sometimes it's difficult to understand the Trinity, and I think they were afraid of not giving enough honor to either the Father and/or the Son. Their intentions may have been good, is what I mean to say.

But I can appreciate the Holy Spirit so much more to think of Him as a Person. And what was most shocking to me was the day that I realized that what I received "from God" in the way of being able to understand Scriptures, for example, and comfort I had received, and all such interactions with God in prayer, were likely the Holy Spirit. That was a real revelation to me. In which case it does make it easy to accept that He is to be worshipped and glorified.

I think the intent of the Creed, actually, was perhaps to make sure we understood that the Holy Spirit IS God, and not something that is subordinate or substandard, and worthy of worship Himself.

It is also a small reminder ... "together" ... that also makes me think of how they all share in the same Essence, undivided.

Well stated indeed. When we begin our prayers and our services with the trinitarian invocation and close them with a trinitarian doxology we are indeed worshiping and glorifying the one true God in three persons as we confess in the creed.

In our Lutheran tradition when we have a hymn which concludes with a trinitarian doxology in the last stanza, it is our custom that the whole congregation rises and stands out of respect for the triune name of God.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Well stated indeed. When we begin our prayers and our services with the trinitarian invocation and close them with a trinitarian doxology we are indeed worshiping and glorifying the one true God in three persons as we confess in the creed.

In our Lutheran tradition when we have a hymn which concludes with a trinitarian doxology in the last stanza, it is our custom that the whole congregation rises and stands out of respect for the triune name of God.

We too have such hymns and prayers. Here is an example or two.

• O God of truth, prepare our minds
  To hear and heed your holy word;
  Fill every heart that longs for you
  With your mysterious presence, Lord.
  
  Almighty Father, with your Son
  And blessed Spirit, hear our prayer:
  Teach us to love eternal truth
  And seek its freedom everywhere.
  .
• Bright as fire in darkness,
  Sharper than a sword,
  Lives throughout the ages
  God’s eternal word.
  
  Father, Son and Spirit,
  Trinity of might,
  Compassed in your glory,
  Give the world your light.

I like this hymn too

God has spoken by his prophets,
Spoken his unchanging word,
Each from age to age proclaiming
God the One, the righteous Lord.
Mid the world’s despair and turmoil,
one firm anchor holdeth fast:
God is King, his throne eternal,
God the first and God the last.

God has spoken by Christ Jesus,
Christ, the everlasting Son,
Brightness of the Father’s glory,
With the Father ever one;
Spoken by the Word incarnate,
God of God, ere time began,
Light of Light, to earth descending,
Man, revealing God to man.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Thanks Mark and MoreCoffee,

Mark, I'm curious about your doxology.

We too have such hymns and prayers. Here is an example or two.

• O God of truth, prepare our minds
  To hear and heed your holy word;
  Fill every heart that longs for you
  With your mysterious presence, Lord.
  
  Almighty Father, with your Son
  And blessed Spirit, hear our prayer:
  Teach us to love eternal truth
  And seek its freedom everywhere.
  .
• Bright as fire in darkness,
  Sharper than a sword,
  Lives throughout the ages
  God’s eternal word.
  
  Father, Son and Spirit,
  Trinity of might,
  Compassed in your glory,
  Give the world your light.

I like this hymn too

God has spoken by his prophets,
Spoken his unchanging word,
Each from age to age proclaiming
God the One, the righteous Lord.
Mid the world’s despair and turmoil,
one firm anchor holdeth fast:
God is King, his throne eternal,
God the first and God the last.

God has spoken by Christ Jesus,
Christ, the everlasting Son,
Brightness of the Father’s glory,
With the Father ever one;
Spoken by the Word incarnate,
God of God, ere time began,
Light of Light, to earth descending,
Man, revealing God to man.

I like those. Thanks for sharing.

I remember I thought "The Doxology" was a particular song, and there was only one. I took myself to church for a while when I was 12. The Doxology was my absolute favorite part of the entire service. But it got me thinking, and was a point of confusion for me, because that pastor called the Holy Ghost "it" and I very much got the sense that He was a kind of power-source there. And the term "Holy Ghost" made me think of something spooky.

But The Doxology was this one. I still love it, btw, but it says so little compared to others I've heard now.

Praise God from Whom all blessings flow
Praise Him all creatures here below
Praise Him above, ye heavenly host
Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

I always got a thrill when I sang the last line, but I also felt a twinge almost of guilt, because it seemed like idolatry according to what I'd been taught.

But it was the beginning of making me think, so for that I am grateful too.

 

[paul becke]

I'm not sure how much I have to say about this part - except that it's funny, in my earlier Christian life, I never considered "worshipping" the Holy Spirit. In some denominations, it seems He was regarded a bit more as an impersonal power-source. But to begin to appreciate the Holy Spirit as a Person Himself, and to realize that He (as God) is worthy to be worshipped and glorified, puts is back into perspective for me.

Not that I'm blaming the pastors before - I think sometimes it's difficult to understand the Trinity, and I think they were afraid of not giving enough honor to either the Father and/or the Son. Their intentions may have been good, is what I mean to say.

But I can appreciate the Holy Spirit so much more to think of Him as a Person. And what was most shocking to me was the day that I realized that what I received "from God" in the way of being able to understand Scriptures, for example, and comfort I had received, and all such interactions with God in prayer, were likely the Holy Spirit. That was a real revelation to me. In which case it does make it easy to accept that He is to be worshipped and glorified.

I think the intent of the Creed, actually, was perhaps to make sure we understood that the Holy Spirit IS God, and not something that is subordinate or substandard, and worthy of worship Himself.

It is also a small reminder ... "together" ... that also makes me think of how they all share in the same Essence, undivided.

It occurred to me the other day, Kylissa, that when, god willing, we are definitively grafted into the Vine, the Mystical Body of Christ, as 'other Christs', we shall form a Multiplicity - as an adoptive extenson of the Most Holy Trinity, God in his own right.