The Nicene Creed

I concluded my last blog with a number of conclusions I have drawn as I have read, studied, and taught the doctrine of the Trinity in the midst of the modern debate over “egalitatarian” views of the Trinity and the role relationships of men and women. The first of those conclusions was that significant problems have developed among evangelicals since the Enlightenment on the doctrine of the Trinity. 

I suppose that the first question someone might ask me about that assertion is, “By what standard?” My answer is by the standard of the Bible, but also by the standard of the Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed or at least its identifying trinitarian formulas were adopted by all the mainstream confessions and creeds of the Reformation. Here is the language of the Nicene Creed in the form that it emerged after the Council of Constantinople in 381 and in which it is commonly used liturgies today.  

The key words of importance for the modern debate I have placed in bold italics. The Nicene Creed asserts, of course, that there are three persons who are God. It also asserts that there is only one God. Thus, the deity of the Son and Spirit is identical to the deity of the Father. The Son is “of one substance with Father” and by implication so is the Spirit. 

But when these two truths (that there is one God and that there are three persons who are God) have been stated, the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity has not yet been fully stated. The Creed is at pains to state with incredible repetition and emphasis what we call the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son. The Lord Jesus Christ is the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds light of light, very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father. Unless we believe this doctrine, we do not believe the Nicene Creed; and we do not—by the standard of the Nicene Creed—hold to the Trinitarianism of historic Christianity. Modern evangelicals need to think about that! 

http://www.cbtseminary.org/2011/07/whos-tampering-with-the-trinity-2/

i) I, for one, am an egalitarian about the Trinity, but a complementation about men and women. 

ii) The subtitle ("Do we really believe in the Nicene Creed?") of Waldron's post is ironic. Does he believe in "one baptism for the forgiveness of sins"?

Let's evaluate the Nicene Creed:

WE BELIEVE in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,

i) The English translation has a comma after "one God," which might suggest the "one God" includes the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But to my knowledge, the Greek text doesn't have that punctuation. 

ii) These seem to be parallel clauses:

We believe in one God the Father

We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ

If so, that suggests the Nicene Creed only affirms the Father as the one God–not the Father, Son, and Spirit inclusively. If so, that's a very defective formulation. 

maker of heaven and earth,

i) In Scripture, the creation of the world is not unique to the Father. In fact, the NT typically ascribes that action that to the Son. 

Indeed, the Creed goes on to say "all things were made through" the Son. 

But in that event, it fails to single out any particular act or attribute that distinguishes the Father from the Son. 

ii) The Creed is deficient in that respect because patristic theology was underdeveloped. For instance, a Calvinist would say the work of the Father includes election and justification, as well as raising Jesus from the dead. In the economy of salvation, that's distinctive to the Father.

of all that is, seen and unseen.

Strictly speaking, I wouldn't say everything invisible was created. Numbers weren't created. Possible worlds weren't created. Rather, these inhere in the mind and nature of God.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,

As I've explained before, I do not affirm the eternal generation of the Son. God is not derivative. 

of one Being with the Father.

That's the best part of the Creed. Unfortunately, it fails to extend that principe to the Spirit. It never says the Spirit is consubstantial with the Father. That's a serious omission. 

Through him all things were made.

For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

That's all good.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,

i) That's rather perfunctory. It fails to mention the work of the Spirit in regeneration and sanctification. Once again, that deficiency reflects the underdeveloped state of patristic theology. 

who proceeds from the Father and the Son.

By the same token, I do not affirm the eternal procession of the Spirit. God is not derivative.

With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.

That's fine.

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

i) Isn't it redundant to say the church is both "one" and "universal"? By definition, there can only be one universal church. 

ii) The other marks are somewhat arbitrary. Yes, the church is "apostolic," but why not say the church is "prophetic, apostolic, and and dominical" (Eph 2:20)?

Likewise, the church is "spiritual." A fellowship of the Holy Spirit  

We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

I don't acknowledge that baptism confers the remission of sins, if that's what it means. 

We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come.

Fine.

In sum, the Nicene Creed is very uneven. Gets a number of things right, gets some things wrong, and is defective in some of its formulations.