Seventeen centuries ago, the church debated the issue of who Christ is. This creed was the result. (It had nothing to do with establishing Scripture.)

Let’s begin.

I.. Introduction

A.. Context

The Nicene Creed was published in 325 by the Council of Nicaea, a town in northern Turkey today. The statement about the Holy Spirit was added at the Second Ecumenical Council held Constantinople in 381. So it is fair to call it the Constantinopolitan-Nicene Creed.

Here is the addition:

And [we believe] in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life,
Who proceeds from the Father; who with the Father and the Son
together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.
In one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins.
I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life
of the world to come.
Amen.

But in this post we look at the version that has the phrase “and in the Holy Spirit.”

Athanasius was fighting against Arius (third to fourth centuries), presbyter of a region of Alexandria, Egypt. Arius taught that Jesus was created or had a beginning. Athanasius (c. 296/8 to 373) taught that Jesus was uncreated and was eternally begotten by the Father. He had no beginning.

The Nicene Creed is deliberately anti-Arian.

B. Scriptural foundation

Here are some Scriptures (and no doubt others not included in this long list) that they used to build their creed:

2. Two Natures in One Person: He Was Human and God

Now let’s look into their deductions from these Scriptures, boiled down in this remarkable creed. I write my commentary as a student (not an expert), only to learn.

C. Limits

This creed hold a lot of authority, and I value it highly, but it is not an absolute or infallible authority. I use it for consultation purposes only. For me, the Bible alone (sola scriptura) is the absolute and inerrant authority.

II. Nicene Creed

A. Brief intro.

Please note that there are other versions which add section, as it evolved in A.D. 381 (the Holy Spirit). Let’s work with this one.

B. The creed says:

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, begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through Whom all things came into being, things in heaven and things on earth, Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down, and became incarnate and became man, and suffered, and rose again on the third day, and ascended to the heavens, and will come to judge the living and dead, And in the Holy Spirit. But as for those who say, There was when He was not, and, Before being born He was not, and that He came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance, or created, or is subject to alteration or change – the Catholic [universal] and apostolic Church anathematizes.

Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα Θεὸν Πατέρα παντοκράτορα πάντων ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων ποιητήν· καὶ εἰς ἕνα Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς μονογενῆ τουτέστιν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρος Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ, Φῶς ἐκ Φωτός, Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, γεννηθέντα, οὐ ποιηθέντα, ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί, δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο τά τε ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ τὰ ἐν τῇ γῇ, τὸν δι’ ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν, κατελθόντα, καὶ σαρκωθέντα, καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα, παθόντα, καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ, ἀνελθόντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρανούς, ἐρχόμενον κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς. καὶ εἰς τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα. Τοὺς δὲ λέγοντας Ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, καὶ Πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἦν, καὶ ὅτι Ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων εγένετο, ἢ Ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσιάς φάσκοντας εἶναι ἢ κτιστόν ἢ τρεπτόν ἢ ἀλλοιωτὸν τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, τούτους ἀναθεματίζει ἡ ἁγία καθολικὴ καὶ ἀποστολικὴ ἐκκλησία.

Credimus in unum Deum patrem omnipotentem, omnium visibilium et invisibilium factorem. Et in unum Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum filium Dei, natum ex Patre unigenitum, hoc est, de substantia Patris, Deum ex Deo, lumen ex lumine, Deum verum de Deo vero, natum non factum, unius substantiae cum Patre, quod graece dicunt homousion, per quem omnia facta sunt quae in coelo et in terra, qui propter nostram salutem descendit, incarnatus est, et homo factus est, et passus est, et resurrexit tertia die, et adscendit in coelos, venturus judicare vivos et mortuos. Et in Spiritum sanctum. Eos autem, qui dicunt, Erat quando non erat, et ante quam nasceretur non erat, et quod de non exstantibus factus est, vel ex alia substantia aut essentia, dicentes convertibilem et demutabilem Deum: hos anathematizat catholica Ecclesia.

Source:

https://earlychurchtexts.com/public/creed_of_nicaea_325.htm

III. Commentary

A. Brief intro

Let’s comment on this creed line by line or section by section.

B. Opening

We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible;

The Greek word pantokratõr literally means “ruler over all” It appears in the NT: 2 Cor 6:18; Rev. 1:8; 4:8; 11:17 15:3; 16:7, 14; 19:6, 15; 21:22. God is the almighty, which means he is sovereign over all. He made everything, whether visible (our universe) or invisible (angels and the heavenly dimension), but as we will learn, he has not made the Son or the Spirit, because they too are God.

C. Heart of the Creed

And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God

This is the heart of the creed. Let’s spend some time here.

The Son is of the Father and begotten, which means that the Father generates the Son in his personhood. The main point is that the Father is the “source” of the person of the Son and the person of the Spirit. The generation is eternal, without beginning. Anything that is eternal cannot have a beginning. Anything that does not have a beginning is not made or created. Therefore, the Father, the Son, the Spirit are not created or made, but are co-eternal.

The Greek noun ὁμοούσιον (homoousion from homoousia, pronounced hoh-moh-oo-see-on) literally means “same substance.” The Son was of the same substance or essence as the Father. In contrast, the alternative (but deficient) Greek word is homoiousion (pronounced hoh-moi-OO-see-on, meaning “similar substance”). The Son has a similar substance, but not the same substance. However, if the Son were “similar” to God, he could not be “true God” or “perfect God.” Therefore, this notion was rejected because it lowers Christ’s deity relative to the Father. The Son would not fully or truly or equally share in the substance that the Father has

The right answer: Father and Son are co-equal in their shared substance / essence.

This defeats Arianism, which says that Jesus had a beginning and a similar substance.

The Trinity: What Do Arians and Jehovah’s Witnesses Teach?

See below for an analysis of these phrases: “light from light, true God from true God”

D. Correct Illustration

Let’s offer an illustration starter kit. In the next illustration, you may want to study this image for a few minutes (take as long as you need). Do you now see how the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit share the same substance? And also note that this image keeps the three persons distinct:

I really like the triangle superimposed on the circle. The three persons (the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit) are distinguished by the circle with the words “is not.” The Father is neither the Son nor the Spirit; the Son is neither the Father or the Spirit; and the Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son. Further, each person is in a separate corner of the triangle. Therefore, the three persons are distinct, yet each person shares the same substance or essence called God.

E. Incorrect illustration

Now let’s look at a wrong illustration. This next one keeps the three persons distinct (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), and that’s right, but it also divides the substance, and that’s wrong:

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are distinct (right), but the substance is divided in three parts (wrong). This is erroneous. Christianity rejects tritheism (three gods).

F. Another correct illustration

Here is the right illustration from Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology (p. 321, Fig. 14.4):

Note that three persons (F, S, HS) are within one God, sharing the same essence. The one God (= the circle), monotheism, and all three persons are contained in it. Each person is equal to the whole being of God. The dotted lines keep the the persons distinct, but they also are dotted to indicate interpersonal relationship between the three persons. The substance is not divided, but shared by all three persons.

The dotted lines are designed to illustrate the term perichōresis (pronounced pair-ee-khoh-reh-sis and literally meaning “rotation”). It shows the intimate relationship of the persons. It means the “coinherence” of the three persons. They are closely related in the one Being, God. I like the idea of relationship in the Trinity. That’s what matters to me as a follower of Jesus.

As usual, don’t push illustrations too far. They are merely designed to help guard against misunderstanding and to clarify. They are starter kits.

G. Begotten

light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father

Next, I love the words “light from light” because they talk about the Son proceeding from the Father, as light proceeds from the sun. Light from Light shares the same substance or essence.

“True God from true God”: what can be truly said of God can be also truly said of Jesus in his divine nature.

In these lines we see that the Son is from the Father. What does this mean? Let’s circle back around to “begotten.”

I like what professional theologian Donald Frame says of “begotten.” “‘Begotten’ is little more than a synonym for ‘Son'” (p. 494). In affirming we don’t know the details, Frame also says, “A certain amount of reverent agnosticism is appropriate here” (p. 495). No, this is not agnosticism that doubts God’s existence, but the kind of agnosticism that keeps quiet about such heavenly matters like eternal generation or being begotten. (Frame is a Calvinist, and I am not, but I can still learn some things from him.)

Personally, I like to simplify things. The Scriptures reveal the Father and the Son, not to give us a headache, but so we can relate to them. We can have a personal relationship with the Father as intimately (and more so) as we have with our own father. And we can relate to the Son as the Messiah and Lord, who has a unique relationship with the Father. The Son reveals the Father. The title Father is more personal and revealing than “God.”

Bottom line: let’s have a relationship with the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, since they are revealed in Scripture in those three persons, for our relational benefit.

H. The Son is Creator

through Whom all things came into being, things in heaven and things on earth,

Jesus was involved in creation–in creating the universe (John 1:3; Heb. 1:2).

I. Incarnation, Ministry, Resurrection

Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down, and became incarnate and became man, and suffered, and rose again on the third day, and ascended to the heavens, and will come to judge the living and dead,

“Men” and “man” should rightly be translated as “people” or “persons” or “human beings” (plural) or “person” or “human being” (singular). The Greek noun anthrōpos does not mean “man” in the sense of “male,” but is more generic, encompassing mankind and womankind.

This section is clearly what the Scriptures teach–the incarnation–so I don’t need t expand on them. Instead, here are some links:

J. The Holy Spirit

And in the Holy Spirit. Another addition says: “We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets.”

The later (so-called) Athanasian Creed adds:

23.. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

The Spirit is co-eternal and of the same substance of the Father. Remember the circle with the Holy Spirit inside it. The Spirit is in and is of the same “God substance.”

The Spirit’s Deity and Divine Attributes

But as for those who say, There was when He was not, and, Before being born He was not, and that He came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance, or created, or is subject to alteration or change – the Catholic [universal] and apostolic Church anathematizes.

This section takes down the Arians (today they have partly morphed into Jehovah’s Witnesses). The Arians said that there was a time when the Son was not (he did not exist eternally). This creed says no. Evidently some Arians said that before the Son was born of the virgin Mary, he did not exist. The creed says no to this idea. Others said that he was created out of nothing. The creed says no. He was never created but always existed. The Arians said that the Father and Son had slightly different (or “similar”) substances / essences, but the creed also says no to this. They share the exact same substance. Others said the Son was created. No. Evidently, some heresies said the Son was subject to alteration or change in his divine nature. No. (However, he acquired a human nature at his birth, but this did not change his divine nature).

The Trinity: What Do Arians and Jehovah’s Witnesses Teach?

The Trinity: What Are Defective Ideas?

IV. Application

A. Sense of history and connection

I really like this creed. It makes me feel like a part of the ancient community of our brothers and sisters who lived centuries ago. We Americans dismiss the past, stomping all over it. We tear down old buildings and put in a parking lot (car park). But we must be careful that we don’t absorb the “American spirit” and reject or devalue this ancient creed.

B. Clarity about who Jesus is

By this creed, I learn who Jesus really was. He was God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God. We can worship him as God the Son and the Son of God. Now, in our worship time, either privately or at church, we can really know the one we worship!

C. Enjoy your relationship with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit

Finally, instead of getting confused by this wonderful creed, let’s enjoy a relationship with the Father and Son (and the Spirit). The Scripture reveals them so that we can relate to them, not dissect them with our brain power and stick them in a creed.

Yes. I love this creed, but if it remains academic and does not lead to a deeper relationship with the Father, through the Son, and by the power of the Spirit, then we are swallowing dust from old books.

Most of all, the Trinity is relational for us. Enjoy a relationship with the Father through the Son and by the indwelling Spirit!

This relationship is what we should teach on Sunday morning. We will never therefore give up the Trinity.

D. I need the creed.

I read the creed. You need the creed. Do you read the creed? You must read the creed!

RELATED

Is Belief in the Creeds Necessary for Salvation?

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Works Cited