The Nicene Creed

[The Gregorian]

Did you relise here...that you are giving us insights as how God shuts up all in disobedience that he may show mercy to all.

God gives the disqualified mind as well as the believing mind....to suit a higher purpose of his.

How so? I'm not sure I follow.

 

[The Gregorian]

Actually, the 325 Creed did include the Holy Spirit.

So the notion of the Trinity was there even in the 325 Creed.

How do you figure? From the sites I've read they didn't really even mention the holy spirit... let alone call it a God.

I get why they would say the Son was a God... he came from God, therefore he is in like kind... makes sense... but... "The holy spirit was sent forth, therefore he's coequal, coeternal, etc." ... where did they say anything about that?

 

[Secundulus]

How do you figure? From the sites I've read they didn't really even mention the holy spirit... let alone call it a God.

I get why they would say the Son was a God... he came from God, therefore he is in like kind... makes sense... but... "The holy spirit was sent forth, therefore he's coequal, coeternal, etc." ... where did they say anything about that?

The council did mention the Holy Spirit. This is exactly what they said, (from a primary source)

‘We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible:—and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of the Father, that is of the substance of the Father; God of God and Light of light; true God of true God; begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father: by whom all things were made, both which are in heaven and on earth: who for the sake of us men, and on account of our salvation, descended, became incarnate, and was made man; suffered, arose again the third day, and ascended into the heavens, and will come again to judge the living and the dead. [We] also [believe] in the Holy Spirit. But the holy Catholic and Apostolic church anathematizes those who say “There was a time when he was not,” and “He was not before he was begotten” and “He was made from that which did not exist,” and those who assert that he is of other substance or essence than the Father, or that he was created, or is susceptible of change.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf202.ii.iv.viii.html
​

They did not speak more on the Holy Spirit because that was not the issue under discussion.

 

[Dorothea]

Here's the one we say:

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, Who together with the
Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, Who
spoke through the prophets.

In one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.
I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

I look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the age to come.

Amen.

 

[The Gregorian]

[We] also [believe] in the Holy Spirit.

Well, that's hardly a declaration of anything? If the three are coequal/coeternal/interchangeable, then why would so much time be spent on one, and so little on the other?

 

[Secundulus]

Well, that's hardly a declaration of anything? If the three are coequal/coeternal/interchangeable, then why would so much time be spent on one, and so little on the other?

Because the issue being addressed at Nicaea was the Son, not the Holy Spirit. Arius was teaching that "there was a time when the Son was not," thus denying his eternity and divinity. The identity of the Holy Spirit was not in question at the time.

 

[Secundulus]

Here's the one we say:

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, Who together with the
Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, Who
spoke through the prophets.

In one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.
I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

I look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the age to come.

Amen.

With the exception of the filioque, that is exactly what we say also. However, this form was not finalized until Chalcedon in the fifth century. But because it essentially was restating that which was decided at Nicaea, it kept the name, Nicene Creed.

 

[Dorothea]

With the exception of the filioque, that is exactly what we say also. However, this form was not finalized until Chalcedon in the fifth century. But because it essentially was restating that which was decided at Nicaea, it kept the name, Nicene Creed.

Thanks for that info.

 

[The Gregorian]

Because the issue being addressed at Nicaea was the Son, not the Holy Spirit. Arius was teaching that "there was a time when the Son was not," thus denying his eternity and divinity. The identity of the Holy Spirit was not in question at the time.

But, if they're "one" how can the issue be of one and not the other... of the same thing?

Was the holy spirit already accepted, but the son not at the time?

If they're teaching "triunity" ... how can one "not be the issue" and another one "be an issue" ... yet the two be one?

... that's not how numbers work.

 

[Secundulus]

But, if they're "one" how can the issue be of one and not the other... of the same thing?

Was the holy spirit already accepted, but the son not at the time?

If they're teaching "triunity" ... how can one "not be the issue" and another one "be an issue" ... yet the two be one?

... that's not how numbers work.

Read the Apostolic history here. That will explain the issue with the words and letters of the time.

Was the holy spirit already accepted, but the son not at the time?

They all were accepted by the Church and had been for hundreds of years. Arius came and began teaching something different about the Son. He didn't say anything about the Holy Spirit. Therefore the council addressed the specific controversy about the Son and didn't talk about the Holy Spirit.

 

[The Gregorian]

First... that's actually a logical point secu... I disagree, but I can see your reasoning. Thank you.

Unfortunately, that site's pretty darn biased if nothing else:

"A certain one of the presbyters under his jurisdiction, whose name was Arius, possessed of no inconsiderable logical acumen...."

i.e.

"Achillas was talking about the trinity, and Arius, who was dumb, disagreed"

He does have a point, though.... in what way is the Son "the only begotten son" if he's always existed with the Father? To beget is to cause... "Begotten" implies that the Son came FROM the father... he's called the firstborn of all creation... Plus simply by calling him "son" it shows the Father to be older, from how I see it.

So... How can someone be "the only begotten Son, first born of creation" ... yet never been born? And be as old as his Father, who begot him?

 

[Secundulus]

Unfortunately, that site's pretty darn biased if nothing else:

It is biased against Arius because nealy the entire early Church disagreed with him.

He does have a point, though.... in what way is the Son "the only begotten son" if he's always existed with the Father? To beget is to cause... "Begotten" implies that the Son came FROM the father... he's called the firstborn of all creation... Plus simply by calling him "son" it shows the Father to be older, from how I see it.

So... How can someone be "the only begotten Son, first born of creation" ... yet never been born? And be as old as his Father, who begot him?

I cannot explain this better than Athanasius. He was one of the main players in this issue. His writings against Arius are here if you want to see the actual arguments that decided the issue.