Tuesday, November 10, 2015

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. 

25 comments:

  1. Would you say the creed in a church service? Do you think there can be any legitimacy in lending your voice to the 'spirit' of the creed whilst recognising its defects?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd recite the articles I agree with, and pass over the others in silence.

      Delete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Steve,

    Where are you on the meaning of μονογενὴς in John 3:16? I've seen arguments that "only begotten" is a mistranslation. I didn't know where you stood on that.

    If it were a mistranslation, I suppose that even the nicene creed would have used it incorrectly.

    (sorry, didn't mean to delete the earlier comment)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good question:

      i) Nowadays, the general scholarly consensus is that it means "unique, only, one and only, one of a kind," rather than "only-begotten."

      ii) Lexical semantics aside, one problem with "eternal generation" is that it overextends a metaphor. What is the intended scope of the father/son analogy?

      For instance, in procreation, fathers are not the exclusive source of sons. It also takes a mother.

      So even at a figurative level, it's problematic to press a procreative sense.

      iii) Likewise, eternal generation would reduce the Son to a sheer effect, having no reality apart from the Father's production. Almost like a virtual game character.

      Delete
    2. 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.

      Tanner, who uses punctuation in both the Greek and Latin versions, does not have a comma after "one God" in neither Greek nor Latin.

      Delete
  4. Interesting . . .
    How do you deal with the "today" of Psalm 2:7 and the quotes of it in Hebrews 1:5 and 5:5 and Acts 13:33?
    Seems like a stretch to call it an "eternal today into the past".
    Seems like it points to a point in time - the incarnation.

    Some take it ("today") as the resurrection, based on Acts 13:33 and the surrounding context, but that seems to dilute the pre-existence of the Son.

    I thought the "eternal generation" of the Son and "eternal procession of the Spirit" (John 15:26) was orthodox doctrine that we are bound to hold to. Is there a book that clearly explains the different nuances of several orthodox doctrinally Biblical views?

    By the "eternally generated" and "eternally proceeding" - It seems that the early church was taking John 1:1 and 17:5 seriously - eternally existing with the Father, the word = thought and mind expressing itself in words - coming out from the Father, etc.

    the eternally coming out from the Father, like rays from the sun; is the way many were trying to describe the Trinity in the early church, it seems.

    In what sense is the Father "the Father", if there is no eternal generation of the Son and eternal procession of the Holy Spirit?

    If you don't accept the eternal generation of the Son, nor the eternal procession of the Spirit; what is the name of that view of the Trinity, and what book describes that?

    David Waltz says that Augustine developed the Trinity from the Nicene period of "same substance" (homo-ousias) to "one substance" (mono-ousias) and that it was Calvin who developed it further into the auto-theos of the Son and the auto-theos of the Spirit. (that they are God out from themselves rather than God by nature eternally coming out from the Father.

    I agree with you on "baptism for the forgiveness of sins" - they (writers of the Nicene Creed) seemed to take the language of Acts 2:38, without noting that it can be "causal eis" - "because of the forgiveness of sins" or more connected to repentance, as in Luke 24:47.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "How do you deal with the 'today' of Psalm 2:7 and the quotes of it in Hebrews 1:5 and 5:5 and Acts 13:33?"

      i) Ps 2 is a royal Davidic psalm. Specifically, an enthronement psalm. The father/son imagery refers back to the terms of the Davidic covenant (2 Sam 7:14).

      It trades on the connotations of a son as his father's heir. And in this context, a royal heir. That's explicated in v8.

      ii) In the context of the Ps 2, "today" either refers to the day of coronation or day when the prince is designated as the king's rightful heir.

      iii) In Hebrews and Acts, it probably refers to the Ascension, when Jesus "sits at the right hand of the Father," as coregent.

      "Some take it ("today") as the resurrection, based on Acts 13:33 and the surrounding context, but that seems to dilute the pre-existence of the Son."

      There's no reason to use Acts 13:33 as a prooftext for the Son's preexistence. There are other passages that establish his preexistence.

      "I thought the 'eternal generation' of the Son and 'eternal procession of the Spirit' (John 15:26) was orthodox doctrine that we are bound to hold to."

      i) It's standard patristic theology, which fed into Western theology.

      ii) Jn 15:26 refers to Pentecost.

      "By the 'eternally generated' and 'eternally proceeding' - It seems that the early church was taking John 1:1 and 17:5 seriously - eternally existing with the Father, the word = thought and mind expressing itself in words - coming out from the Father, etc."

      Although external generation/procession imply eternal preexistence, eternal preexistence doesn't imply eternal generation/procession. Those are entirely separable.

      The NT directly and indirectly teaches the eternal preexistence of the Son. But that doesn't require generation.

      I'd add that even at a metaphorical level, fathers don't continuously beget their sons. That's a one-time act.

      "In what sense is the Father 'the Father', if there is no eternal generation of the Son and eternal procession of the Holy Spirit?"

      Fatherhood and sonship are rich metaphors. A son can signify many things, viz.

      i) A symbol of a father's virility (Gen 49:3).

      ii) A father's natural agent or representative.

      iii) The heir

      iv) A like father/like son relationship

      You can have eternal fatherhood/sonship without having the Father produce the Son. Theological metaphors are not to be pressed in ways unsuited to divinity.

      "If you don't accept the eternal generation of the Son, nor the eternal procession of the Spirit; what is the name of that view of the Trinity, and what book describes that?"

      You could call it "egalitarian," in contrast to Nicene subordination. Exponents include B. B. Warfield, Paul Helm, Robert Reymond, and John Frame. Here's one example:

      http://archive.churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/cman_115_4_helm.pdf

      Delete
    2. Thanks for the link; I have printed it out and look forward to studying the issue in a deeper way. Robert Letham's book, The Holy Trinity looks good. I have it, but have not had time to read much of it.

      Delete
  5. I am just trying to learn and thinking out loud about these issues. Don't take my questions as challenges; I am thinking of how to answer others in apologetics, and seeing the many challenges that people might bring up, and currently dealing with Muslims and those who know early church history and Patristics (Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox) makes all of this quite challenging. I have been dealing with some former Muslims who are moving from a Protestant-Evangelical evangelical faith to either Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy and we are having to deal with them, and it is a very challenging issue to work through.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The Father raised the Son from the dead? I never thought about it in those terms. Why would you say that? I figure Christ raised from the dead because death had no hold over him, since "it was finished" the Friday before. Firstborn from the dead.

    "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."

    Maybe. But it was written by people. People who were refuting Arianism. If they knew a Calvinist would be reading it they might have chosen their words differently.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I say that because it's a stock NT formula:

      God raised him up (Acts 2:24)

      This Jesus God raised up (Acts 2:32)

      whom God raised from the dead (Acts 3:15)

      whom God raised from the dead (Acts 4:10)

      The God of our fathers raised Jesus (Acts 5:30)

      but God raised him on the third day (Acts 10:40)

      But God raised him from the dead (Acts 13:30)

      but he whom God raised up did not see corruption (Acts 13:37)

      just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father (Rom 6:4)

      God raised him from the dead (Rom 10:9)

      And God raised the Lord (1 Cor 6:14)

      we testified about God that he raised Christ (1 Cor 15:15)

      God the Father, who raised him from the dead (Gal 1:1)

      that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead (Eph 1:20)

      the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead (Col 2:12)

      in God, who raised him from the dead (1 Pet 1:21)

      Delete
    2. "If they knew a Calvinist would be reading it they might have chosen their words differently."

      Irrelevant. I was responding to Sam Waldron.

      Delete
  7. there are many verses that say God the Father raised Jesus from the dead;
    and
    there are a few that say the Son raised Himself from the dead - John 10:18; John 2:19-22
    and
    there are a few that indicate the Holy Spirit was involved in the resurrection
    I Peter 3:18-19 (but that may just mean the spiritual nature of Christ Himself vs. His physical nature)
    The other two are clearer, IMO
    Romans 1:4
    Romans 8:11

    All three persons of the Trinity were involved in the work of the resurrection.

    ReplyDelete
  8. An exchange I recently had that might be relevant, not sure.

    Reformed Apologist3:36 PM
    Consciousness being a function of mind is indexed to essence, not persons, hence the Son has two. Now then, all persons being of one essence have one will and mind, thereby conscious of the same things at the same time, always and exhaustively. Perichoresis underscores this. Also, attributes are not just adjectives but nouns when pertaining to God who is ultimate. Therefore, God *is* holy, omniscient, omnipotent, etc. and not merely like holiness. Attributes aren't abstractions but who God is. What God is like is who God is. His attributes are personal. Now then, before putting this all together, one more thing - there is a taxis. of *persons* in the Trinity that does not undermine the coequality of persons. This is not an ordering of divinity, power or glory. There is no subordination in the Godhead. No, but we do uphold the eternal generation of the Son and spiration of the Spirit. Divinity is not communicated but rather the Son is begotten, the Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son...

    So, given what has been established - given the theological building blocks of eternal generation and divine simplicity, we may with those distinctions conclude distinct personhood *expressions* of the one divine mind and center of consciousness. For instance, the one divine mind knows it is *fitting* that "the Son become man," yet only one of the three persons is conscious that "I" am the eternal Son... It is in this regard that the one consciousness comes to expression in distinct persons, as the one divine will is carried out by the Son willing to become incarnate and the Father's unwillingness for himself to become incarnate.

    In sum, we must do justice to the distinct persons (who are all God) in our upholding of the one self-conscious God. So, although the one consciousness of the divine mind (the one consciousness of God) comes to expression in roles of distinct persons who all share the divine essence in all fullness, all three persons were eternally conscious of the same truth, that "the Son will become man." The three persons will the incarnation of the Son. So, there is one and only one divine mind and will (and not three independent and separate wills!); yet there are expressions that pertain to distinct persons. To give up on that is to collapse persons, bordering a form of modalism.

    {Note too, the one divine mind is not an abstraction or some fourth person, but rather is the mind of God - the mind of all three divine persons who mutually indwell each other.}

    Lane Tipton once argued in the WTJ that CVT, allegedly building on Charles Hodge, was correct in his one person, three person model of the Trinity. Lane wanted to maintain three centers of self-awareness while also upholding that one center implies one person. His foundation being the mutual indwelling and penetration of the three distinct persons. Too much to discuss here other than to say, mystery, equal-ultimacy and perichoresis doesn't lead me to think in terms of one person. One God in three persons, yes, but not one person (in three persons). I do believe Lane uses one person language in a qualified sense but to say the least, I think it's more troublesome than useful.

    Reformed Apologist8:49 PM
    I don't mean LT asserted necessarily without proof but rather I mean that he alleged a link to Hodge in a soft sense, that of asserting.

    LT's insights that are a superb for reflection and discussion can be found here.

    http://faculty.wts.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/2002-Fall-FunctionPerichoresis.pdf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "So, given what has been established - given the theological building blocks of eternal generation and divine simplicity…"

      But I don't take that as a given. I do affirm God's mereological simplicity (i.e. God has no spatiotemporal parts), but I don't grant eternal generation or procession. I think that lacks adequate exegetical foundation, and it's theologically and metaphysically problematic.

      "There is no subordination in the Godhead. No, but we do uphold the eternal generation of the Son and spiration of the Spirit. Divinity is not communicated but rather the Son is begotten, the Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son…"

      You seem to be riffing off of Calvin's distinction, where he says the Father produces the person of the Son rather than the deity of the Son. Now, I think Calvin's partial break with Nicene subordinationism was a good first step. And it was influenced by his debates with anti-Trinitarians, who could used Nicene subordinationism as a wedge.

      But there's no justification in exegetical or philosophical theology for Calvin's distinction. It's a modification of a flawed paradigm. An improvement, but the underlying paradigm is flawed. I'd just scrap the paradigm.

      If the person of the Son derives from the Father, then there's a radical asymmetry between Father and Son. A fundamental inequality at the level of a dependance relation, where the very existence of the Son is contingent on the Father's production.

      Perhaps we could choose some word other than "subordination," inasmuch as that suggests difference in rank. This goes much deeper.

      I prefer the position of Warfield, Frame, and Helm on this issue.

      As to centers of consciousness and self-consciousness, it's true that we have to cash out the notion of "person" in psychological categories of mind or consciousness. I don't have a problem with that. How we model that in detail is a different question.

      Delete

    2. "You seem to be riffing off of Calvin's distinction, where he says the Father produces the person of the Son rather than the deity of the Son. Now, I think Calvin's partial break with Nicene subordinationism was a good first step."

      I agree that this is Calvin but I'm not willing to say it departs from the Nicene Creed. "God of God..." need not imply that divinity is communicate or derived. You mentioned Warfield favorably yet Letham points out that Warfield "recognizes, Calvin did not introduce anything radically new." I think Letham makes a good case that Calvin followed Gregory Nazianzen and Augustine in that "light of light... true God of true God" describe qualities of personhood and not divine essence.

      "And it was influenced by his debates with anti-Trinitarians, who could used Nicene subordinationism as a wedge.

      Yes, that was I think the impetus for the strength of his statements.

      "If the person of the Son derives from the Father, then there's a radical asymmetry between Father and Son. A fundamental inequality at the level of a dependance relation, where the very existence of the Son is contingent on the Father's production."

      I think that collapses objects of predication. The *existence* of the Son can be "autotheos" yet while maintaining the eternal Son, qua Son, is contingent upon the Father. It's not a "production" of deity but of Father/Son relationship.

      "Perhaps we could choose some word other than "subordination," inasmuch as that suggests difference in rank. This goes much deeper."

      Again, I agree. It's the unhappy term that has been employed in the debate and I refrain from it. Too much baggage.

      "I prefer the position of Warfield, Frame, and Helm...."

      I've read Frame and even commended him only recently to someone p. 500 ff in his systematic. I found his treatment straight forward and refreshing.

      Delete
    3. Steve, let me round this out a bit...

      Maybe my view is trivial in that I'm not inclined to make any metaphysical (causal) remark about eternal generation. But I do think there is an ontological aspect that's not merely trivial.

      I'm not prepared to say that the Father is the eternal originator or (even worse) the creator of the Father/Son relationship. However, I don't believe that it's trivial that the Son is the *unchosen* and eternal Son of the Father. Yes, I do recognize that it's no less true that the Father "receives" his fathership "from" the Son than the Son "receives" his sonship from the Father. So much so, it's more to my liking to think in terms of there being an ontological relationship that simply *is* as opposed to received or willfully established. Does that make "begotten" trivial? Maybe so, but how trivial is it if it points to something about the Son that discloses that it was fitting that He become man because of his eternal yet unchosen relationship to the Father? In other words, it's not as though two Fathers decided that one become the Son. Rather, the Son is always the Son in a nature sense that goes beyond divine essence. So, is it tautological to say begotten son? (And btw I don't think that the only begotten Son is merely implying uniqueness.) For me eternal generation merely speaks to and underscores that the Son in his eternal nature as a person (that goes beyond his divinity), was suited for the incarnation in a way the Father isn't, nor could be. Is that theology all bound up in the term Son? No, I think not. Can it be captured by *eternal* Son? Possibly, but not without elaboration; the eternal Son" doesn't imply and ontology of relationship that cannot be a matter of an eternal decision that the Son be the Son. Eternally begotten would seem to preclude a matter of eternal divine choice and addresses an eternal taxis of divine ontological roles.

      Delete
    4. "I think that collapses objects of predication. The *existence* of the Son can be 'autotheos' yet while maintaining the eternal Son, qua Son, is contingent upon the Father. It's not a 'production' of deity but of Father/Son relationship."

      If the person of the Son is produced by the Father, then the Son can't exist apart from that production. The deity of the Son is possessed by the Son. The Son can't be divine unless the person of the Son exists in the first place. The Son can't be anything unless the person of the Son exists.

      Divine person and nature are distinct, but not separate or separable. One can't be had without the other. Nature and person can't be compartmentalizes such that one exists (or could exist) without the other.

      Delete
    5. "And btw I don't think that the only begotten Son is merely implying uniqueness."

      I'm just discussing the meaning of the Greek word in modern lexicons and commentaries.

      As to your larger point, *perhaps* the Son became incarnate because there was something intrinsically fitting about his assuming that redemptive role. But unless the Trinity became incarnate, the incarnation would come down to one divine person. So I don't presume there's anything inherently significant about which person that was.

      Delete
    6. Then we're in violent agreement per my 12:33 pm. My use of "production" prior to that was merely an accommodation to your terms. Nothing is produced. Again, 12:33...

      Delete

    7. "As to your larger point, *perhaps* the Son became incarnate because there was something intrinsically fitting about his assuming that redemptive role. But unless the Trinity became incarnate, the incarnation would come down to one divine person. So I don't presume there's anything inherently significant about which person that was."

      Do you think the Father could have become incarnate in order to redeem? I appreciate he could take on flesh and all that entails in an omnipotent sense but how about with the purpose to redeem a bride for the eternal Son?

      Delete

  9. And then this...and back to my hole
    8:49 PM
    Anonymous said...
    Can you elaborate on this: "So, given what has been established - given the theological building blocks of eternal generation and divine simplicity, we may with those distinctions conclude distinct personhood *expressions* of the one divine mind and center of consciousness."

    1:20 PM
    Reformed Apologist said...
    If (1) the roles of the divine persons are distinct and so ordered as to exist and function harmoniously in unity of purpose, and if (2) divine attributes are who God is, then (3) divine attributes are so ordered - ie. expressed in divine persons according to the purpose and will of God.

    Equality is maintained and persons upheld. If roles of divine persons are ordered, then divine attributes that are predicated to all persons can be expressed according to that order. The Father expressed wrath at the cross, yet the Trinity has wrath. The Son knows that He was our sin bearer, yet the Trinity always was conscious that the Son would be the redeemer. The attributes which all possess equally are functionally distinct.

    ReplyDelete
  10. FYI

    Calvin's Doctrine of the Trinity by Benjamin B. Warfield
    The Princeton Theological Review, 1909

    http://journals.ptsem.edu/id/BR190974/dmd003

    ReplyDelete
  11. Yes, AP. I think what we find from BBW's perspective is that Calvin recoiled over any speculation among Nicene fathers but not over the wording of the Nicene creed itself.

    ReplyDelete