The Nicene Creed - line by line

[Targaryen]

How about accusations of not believing Jesus is God, not believing in the Trinity or the Nicene Creed; are those OK?

Last I checked no one has accused anyone of that at all. So I think Kylissa's warning is still rather moot.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Shall we go on? Perhaps some of the commentary on these can help clear up some of these issues.

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,

 

[MoreCoffee]

I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God, begotten, not made,

Now we're in the meat of the creed where the christological issue is spelled out. Here I affirm that I believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is God, true God, not a god as Jehovah's witnesses say today nor a created god as Arius of Alexandria taught but true God of true God.

After 325 AD there were a few centuries of dispute about this creed, the Arian party at times had the political ascendency and at times the orthodox party did. The dispute was not always peaceful, the use of force came in from both sides but in the end the orthodox prevailed partly by military force. Obviously this issue was important to our Christian forefathers otherwise no dispute would have arisen and no military force would have been used. Looking back at the dispute from a 21st century perspective the use of force is very difficult to understand but the issue was disputed in the fourth century through to the seventh or eighth century and in those times the use of force was not so strange to Christians. ...

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Begotten, not made or created. In any theory of the world's creation those two words will come up. Everything was either created or made in some way.So something very different was going on in the 'begotten' that only God explains, no longer in the prophets but in the Son

John 1:18
18 No one has ever seen God; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.
Hebrews 1:3
3 Who, being the effulgence of His glory and the impress of His substance and upholding and bearing all things by the word of His power, having made purification of sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

True God of true glory that gives the knowledge of Who He is in eternal life by returning to the glory He once had 'before the world 'existed' His light clothed in human flesh. the Son in whom God was pleased to say 'listen to him' when in concealing the glory no longer.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I am finding this thread very different from the Lord's Prayer one. While there were plenty of theological implications that could be found in the prayer, it was so much more personal to me, and a degree of personal interpretation did not seem out of place. The Nicene Creed, having been framed for the purpose of defining theology, is much less within my grasp, and also does not allow for personal interpretation, since essentially its purpose is to define the faith, and we may not seek to redefine it and remain of the same faith.

So I'm enjoying reading, but I can tell there is so much depth there that I have not grasped yet myself, and can't begin to explain.

With that said ...

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,

Light of Light, true God of true God both serve to make me think of the Son being of one substance with the Father. If He is truly God (and we believe He is, and the Creed affirms it) ... then He cannot be less, IMO. Nor can He be of different "substance" imo. I believe He has a distinct will, and surely His own thoughts and personality (isn't that what Person means?) but if we are Nicene Christians, we affirm that the Son is God, as much as the Father.

Begotten, not created - means that Jesus was not some man or angel that was elevated to special status as a reward for His virtues, or any such thing. He was begotten of the Father, the ONLY-begotten, and thus has a unique position in all of the universe. None others were begotten "sons of God" in the same way that Christ Jesus is.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

Wow! Skip reading for a day or so and one has a lot of catching up to do.This section concerning the Trinity is both essential and also not as detailed as many would like. I've found explaining the trinity or the nature of God (in any of the three)further than the creed does tends to lead us into speaking heresy or at the very least error.

 

[Nanopants]

I really like the wording of the creed on this section, but how does the Athanasian creed's "not three Gods" fit here? That one's particularly troublesome but I think it's necessary to keep in mind.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I really like the wording of the creed on this section, but how does the Athanasian creed's "not three Gods" fit here? That one's particularly troublesome but I think it's necessary to keep in mind.

Are you asking how it is that the Creed does not present 3 Gods with the words as they are used? Or are you asking why "not three gods" isn't in there? Or are you asking something else altogether?

(Not that I have an answer, I just want to understand the question.)

 

[Nanopants]

Are you asking how it is that the Creed does not present 3 Gods with the words as they are used? Or are you asking why "not three gods" isn't in there? Or are you asking something else altogether?

(Not that I have an answer, I just want to understand the question.)

Well I think why "three Gods" is excluded is because we are definitively not tritheists. We're Trinitarian, but still monotheists. As for how it is we can believe in three Persons but only one God, well, I'm still looking for a satisfactory answer (I for one do not confess that the living God is merely a lifeless essence, but I'll spare my interpretation as not to derail further). Anyways, it's apparently somewhat of a paradox that not many seem to have an answer for. Since we're talking about truths central to the faith, I thought this belonged, and, well, should serve as a healthy reminder before we go excluding anybody.

 

[seeingeyes]

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,

The Son is the spittin' image of his Father. If you've seen the son, you've seen the Father. If you see the way the son acts, you see the way the Father acts. If you see the way the son loves, you see the way the Father loves. Beginningless and endless and always the same.

 

[Chesterton]

The Son is the spittin' image of his Father.

Well said! (There's currently a thread about Jesus spitting, too.)

 

[~Anastasia~]

Well I think why "three Gods" is excluded is because we are definitively not tritheists. We're Trinitarian, but still monotheists. As for how it is we can believe in three Persons but only one God, well, I'm still looking for a satisfactory answer (I for one do not confess that the living God is merely a lifeless essence, but I'll spare my interpretation as not to derail further). Anyways, it's apparently somewhat of a paradox that not many seem to have an answer for. Since we're talking about truths central to the faith, I thought this belonged, and, well, should serve as a healthy reminder before we go excluding anybody.

I think it's a great question. Particularly since I am finally getting somewhere in understanding it myself - which may or may not make me anyone who should be answering you, LOL.

I'll do my best, but I'm afraid I'm going to fall down when it gets to the deep part of it.

I've always been told "we believe in 1 God in 3 persons - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit". Then they told me the Father had a throne in Heaven, and they told me Jesus became a man, and that He is sitting on another throne at the Father's right hand. So while I could imagine the Holy Spirit as something kind of amorphous, nevertheless, I had two bodily forms and another amorphous form, and they were all "God" and yet I was supposed to believe in only one God.

I nodded my head and agreed, "Yes, 3 persons, 1 God" because that's what I was supposed to do, but deep in my heart, I couldn't understand it. I was told "that's ok, nobody understands" but I still felt guilty that I never admitted, in case I was somehow worshipping three Gods and not One.

Forgive me for my mistakes, and forgive me for that explanation that's going to sound simplistic or possibly ridiculous to some. But that's what I was given, that's where it led, and I AM a fairly logical person with at least a little bit of sense.

Now (taking a deep breath) ... from within the Creed ... I am SLOWLY getting an inkling of a new understanding. I have a feeling that some of my brothers and sisters in Christ have always understood this. And I have a feeling I'm not going to be able to explain it well. But I'm going to try. Forgive me ... I know my efforts will be less than wonderful.

What is starting to make a great difference to me - is the idea of the Son being begotten of the Father .... and of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father.

Wow, I'm stuck already. I know I can say what I don't mean.

I don't mean that these events happened at a point in our time, such that once there was God the Father, then He begat the Son and the Holy Spirit proceeded forth - because that would make the Son and Holy Spirit to be essentially creatures, with a beginning point. There is something I can't quite wrap my mind around with an eternal aspect here, which means that all three are co-eternal (necessary if they are really God).

And the "being of one Substance with the Father" helps me. It is not that God is divided - that is not correct either.

I have heard the Holy Spirit described as something like breath from the Father, or light as it comes from the Sun - that illustration might help?

Nanopants, I don't know if I am making any sense at all. Please forgive me. I'm not even sure if my difficulties are the same as yours, but I'm just sharing where I was, and trying very hard (without much success) to share what I'm learning, just in case it can help.

I think I should stop. I'm just going to muddle it worse. I'm not sure if this means anything at all to you, or to anyone else who may be reading. And maybe someone else can step in and say this better than I am able to. I've been reading some posts in TAW that have helped, along with others who have explained very patiently to me along the way. It's finally falling into place and making perfect sense to me for the first time (except I'm not saying "I comprehend God" ... I'm saying only "I can understand three Persons, one God). But that understanding is one of the most precious I have gotten among the many wonderful revelations I've gotten in the past year, because finally I can approach God in prayer or worship and know I'm not creating some kind of caricature/idol of my own making.

God bless you. Sorry this is long.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

Perhaps my understanding is wrong, but understanding the trinity seems simple if we consider ourselves, the scriptures say that we are made in Gods image. We have a body, a soul and a spirit, that's a trinity (if i properly understand the definition of trinity), and this is not to say we are the same as God the Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit, by no means am i suggesting such a thing, but perhaps this is how we can better understand God the trinity.

 

[Lion King]

We are children through adoption, joint-heirs with Christ.

But we are not "begotten of God the Father" as Jesus Christ is. The Son is the only-begotten.

If we were, that would make us divine gods, which we are not.



ETA: I slightly misread your post. I would have worded it just a little differently if I had understood your intent (I thought you were disagreeing), but the points are all still true. Please forgive me.

Why was Isaac called the "only begotten" son of Abraham, although Abraham had many begotten sons?

Were Abraham's other sons adopted into his family?

 

[~Anastasia~]

Why was Isaac called the "only begotten" son of Abraham, although Abraham had many begotten sons?

Were Abraham's other sons adopted into his family?

Off the top of my head, I would say that Isaac was the legitimate one, Sarai/Sarah being his wife.

There are a number of mentions in Scripture that could confuse the issue (what about the "sons of God" in Genesis 5?) ... but these do not take away from the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ as the only-begotten Son of God.

 

[Lion King]

the Only-Begotten, (John 1:18; 3:16)
Begotten of the Father before all ages. (John 1:2)

The bold part doesn't make sense...at all.

And the supporting John 1:2 verse doesn't even support the proposed supposition that Jesus the Christ was begotten before time itself began.

He was with God in the beginning. John 1:2

IMO, nowhere does the bible ever say the Son was born before all ages. Jesus has always been in existence with the Father even before creation. Never was there a time when the Father was without the Son.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

The bold part doesn't make sense...at all.

And the supporting John 1:2 verse doesn't even support the proposed supposition that Jesus the Christ was begotten before time itself began.

He was with God in the beginning. John 1:2

IMO, nowhere does the bible ever say the Son was born before all ages. Jesus has always been in existence with the Father even before creation.

Yes, Jesus is the beginning and the end, the first and the last, according to Revelation.

 

[Lion King]

Off the top of my head, I would say that Isaac was the legitimate one, Sarai/Sarah being his wife.

There are a number of mentions in Scripture that could confuse the issue (what about the "sons of God" in Genesis 5?) ... but these do not take away from the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ as the only-begotten Son of God.

Why is Jesus called the ONLY BEGOTTEN Son of God, though God has many BEGOTTEN sons?

 

[~Anastasia~]

Why is Jesus called the ONLY BEGOTTEN Son of God, though God has many BEGOTTEN sons?

If you have a point, then if you don't mind I'd rather you come right out and make it than to try to lead with questions, please.

And if you are having trouble understanding what Jesus being "Begotten of the Father" means, that might be a better thing to say.

But it does not mean that Jesus is a created being. God cannot be created - if the Son is God, then He cannot have been created.

 

[Nanopants]

The bold part doesn't make sense...at all.

And the supporting John 1:2 verse doesn't even support the proposed supposition that Jesus the Christ was begotten before time itself began.

He was with God in the beginning. John 1:2

IMO, nowhere does the bible ever say the Son was born before all ages. Jesus has always been in existence with the Father even before creation. Never was there a time when the Father was without the Son.

Uhm hmm. It doesn't say "before all time," it says "ages," which I suppose could be the same ages which the Word Himself framed (Heb 11:3). Then there is this brain teaser:

“Look!” he answered, “I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire; and they are not hurt, and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.” -Dan 3:25

So not only was He present in the beginning but apparently He was seen, before His arrival