The Nicene Creed

[Valerie]

If we stick with the Bible wording, we might have different ideas in our minds, but at least we will be saying the same thing. Way less likely to end up far apart if we stick with the Bible wording when it comes to doctrine.

For instance, I really wonder if we all understand and agree with this phrase:

... of one essence with the Father.

What is an essence? What's the deal with substances and essences? Why was there one version in 325 and another in 381? Why do different translations of the Nicene Creed say different things here, and do these differences matter? Are these variations of the Nicene Creed saying the same thing or different things?

• of one essence with the Father.
• of one Being with the Father.
• consubstantial with the Father;
• of one substance with the Father

If they are saying different things, which one is right? If they are saying the same thing, why do they use these particular words? I really don't think this is easy to understand, and I don't think I need to know the answers to love, worship, and serve Jesus.

But I think we do understand and agree with what Jesus said:

I and the Father are one.

Perhaps this is the "meat" vs the " milk"- perhaps these things were revealed in the early Church in a way they understood, but it is not either or we embrace it all. The Nicene Creed was to deal with a 'particular' heresy at that time. At this time it's way beyond hope of a unified Church so heresy is no longer considered the sin it was in Galatians 5 it seems

[Bootstrap]

Perhaps this is the "meat" vs the " milk"- perhaps these things were revealed in the early Church in a way they understood, but it is not either or we embrace it all. The Nicene Creed was to deal with a 'particular' heresy at that time. At this time it's way beyond hope of a unified Church so heresy is no longer considered the sin it was in Galatians 5 it seems

OK ... but if the Nicene Creed is the meat, can you answer the questions I asked?

... of one essence with the Father.

What is an essence? What's the deal with substances and essences? Why was there one version in 325 and another in 381? Why do different translations of the Nicene Creed say different things here, and do these differences matter? Are these variations of the Nicene Creed saying the same thing or different things?

• of one essence with the Father.
• of one Being with the Father.
• consubstantial with the Father;
• of one substance with the Father

If they are saying different things, which one is right? If they are saying the same thing, why do they use these particular words? I really don't think this is easy to understand, and I don't think I need to know the answers to love, worship, and serve Jesus.

As you answer, can you help me understand what these words clarify?

And in what way is an answer using this theological framework more "meat" than what Jesus said?

[Josh]

Valerie,

If your want one unified church, which one will it be?

If you feel heresy should be a sin, who gets to define what heresy is?

[PeterG]

I suspect you would probably call me trinitarian

That is correct.

Homoousion (/ˌhɒmoʊˈuːsiən/; Greek: ὁμοούσιον, translit. homooúsion, lit. 'same in being', from ὁμός, homós, "same" and οὐσία, ousía, "being") is a Christian theological term, used in the Nicene Creed for describing Jesus (God the Son) as ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί, "same in being" or "of single essence", with God the Father. That notion became one of the cornerstones of theology in Nicene Christianity, and also one of the most important theological concepts within the Trinitarian doctrinal understanding of God.

The term was adopted at the First Council of Nicaea (325) in order to clarify the ontology of Christ. From its Greek original, the term was translated into other languages. In Latin, which is lacking a present participle of the verb 'to be', the translation consubstantialis was chosen, since the noun substantia was commonly used in Latin as translation of the Aristotelian term ousia).

This whole debate of substances and essences leaves me cold, there's nothing like this in the Bible. And it's not just Latin that has difficulty translating this precisely, English does too. The Nicene Creed insists that the right word to describe this relationship is a term taken from Gnostic teachers. Some of the early church fathers, including Origen, thought the right explanation was more like this:

A homoiousian (from the Greek: ὁμοιούσιος from ὅμοιος, hómoios, "similar" and οὐσία, ousía, "essence, being") was a member of 4th-century AD theological party which held that God the Son was of a similar, but not identical, substance or essence to God the Father. Proponents of this view included Eustathius of Sebaste and George of Laodicea.:580, 668 Homoiousianism arose in the early period of the Christian religion out of a wing of Arianism. It was an attempt to reconcile the seemingly irreconcilable views of the pro-Nicene homoousians, who believed that God the Father and Jesus his son were identical (ὁμός, homós) in substance, with the "neo-Arian" position that God the Father is "incomparable" and therefore the Son of God can not be described in any sense as "equal in substance or attributes" but only "like" (ὅμοιος, hómoios) the Father in some subordinate sense of the term.

I don't know the right theological explanation, and it's not because I haven't spent time on it. You can really get lost in this stuff. It's not particularly edifying or useful. It doesn't make you a better disciple. It doesn't involve the kind of worshipful descriptions of God we find in the Bible. I think it's better for us to love, serve, and worship God.

Constantine thought the way to united Christianity was to establish a detailed common theology that settled questions like this, but it actually led to deep divisions among people who believed what the Bible teaches but disagreed about systematic theology. And perhaps they got a little lost in trying to explain what cannot be explained.

I would rather worship God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. I don't need a lot of fancy theology to do that, what the Bible tells me is enough. Instead of a creed that ensures I am on the right side of a dispute I don't understand, I would rather spend more time worshiping in church.

Very well said. I agree that the Council of Nicea (alongside those with alternate but similarly dogmatic views) was overly dogmatic in the matter of the divine substance.

[PeterG]

I am not hearing anyone in this thread suggest that the deity of Christ should be up for grabs.

It seemed to me that a couple of people were open to questioning the full deity of Jesus. Perhaps I was wrong; I hope I was.

And never was it taught that the coming Messiah would be God in the flesh or that he would BE God.

I'm afraid I was right.

[KingdomBuilder]

Unless, of course, you can prove that anywhere it was taught that YHWH would ever be a human capable of sinning....

[PeterG]

Unless, of course, you can prove that anywhere it was taught that YHWH would ever be a human capable of sinning....

Whether or not Jesus was capable of sinning is another of those matters of theological dispute that I don't believe the Bible clearly addresses. (I tend to think he was not capable of sinning, but I'm not certain and don't mind much if people disagree.)

I freely admit that I would have a difficult time supporting the divinity of Jesus (and many other things about him and his gospel) from the Old Testament. The New Testament, however, clearly teaches that Jesus is YHWH; as Jesus himself said, "Before Abraham was, I am."

[Valerie]

Valerie,

If your want one unified church, which one will it be?

If you feel heresy should be a sin, who gets to define what heresy is?

Josh, it's not a feeling that heresy is a sin, Holy Scripture says so: Galatians 5:19: Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleaness. lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envies, muders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like, of which I told you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Who decides what is heresy? These things were contended & dealt with long before the Protestant (which includes Anabaptists) Reformation. The Holy Spirit was given to the Church. In THIS case, over 300 Bishops met in council ( you know, the brotherhood's patterned after Acts 15) met together to address the heresy at hand at that time. I don't find it difficult to understand this!

[Bootstrap]

Who decides what is heresy? These things were contended & dealt with long before the Protestant (which includes Anabaptists) Reformation. The Holy Spirit was given to the Church. In THIS case, over 300 Bishops met in council ( you know, the brotherhood's patterned after Acts 15) met together to address the heresy at hand at that time. I don't find it difficult to understand this!

Actually, this council was called by an emperor, and the emperor continued to honor the Sun God, having coins minted to show him together with the Sun God long after he "converted" to Christianity. To me, that disqualifies him as the source of true doctrine. Before Constantine, the church held councils when it felt they were needed.

Constantine thought the way to unite Christianity was to establish a detailed common theology that settled questions like this, but it actually led to deep divisions among people who believed what the Bible teaches but disagreed about systematic theology. And perhaps they got a little lost in trying to explain what cannot be explained.

Isn't the Bible good enough? Do we really need to be unified on the basis of theology from church councils convened by pagan emperors?

[KingdomBuilder]

It's actually very clear. Unless someone wants to suggest at our God is into facades and pretending.