Post #15 1700 Years of the Nicene Creed - What Is Meant By The Son Being "One Substance With The Father"

Introduction:

    As we begin today's post, I thought I would begin with the section of the Nicene Creed we've covered thus far in this series, included a bolded part that we will look at in today's post.

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker 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 worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made."

    As we have walked our way through this section of the creed, we've observed confession of the deity of the Father and the Son. This idea of the Son being of one substance with the Father underscores their oneness or union in being. 

    As the Father and Son have the sameness of essence, they are also distinguished by eternal relations as the Father begetting or filiating the Son and  the Son being begotten by the Father. 

    As a final review, we've observed that the term "begotten", appearing three times, expressing three important truths about the Son relative to the Father.

1. "The only begotten Son of God". 

    The Son as Son possesses the personal property of Sonship, making Him distinct from the Father. He is otherwise, point-per-point, equal in every respect to the Father in glory, power, and attributes.

2. "Begotten of the Father before all worlds".

    The act of the Father begetting the Son has went on for all eternity. If there were no begetting of the Son, there would be no God the Father. The begotten relation that the Son has with the Father, being eternal, reinforces not only the co-equality of the Father and the Son, but also they as co-eternal within the Godhead. 

    So far then, the first two uses of "begotten" in the creed grant us two pillars for Trinitarian theology, namely the distinction between the Father and Son on the one hand, and their co-eternality and co-equality on the other hand. 

3. "Begotten, not made".

    This third use of "begotten" more forcefully expresses that the Son is not created by the Father in the relation of begetting. To beget is to communicate, to share in equal measure with the Son. The Divine nature itself is indivisible, hence by definition God Himself is uncreated, having existed for all eternity. 

    The Father, Son, and Spirit have perpetually, equally, and eternally "subsisted" or constantly stood in relation to one another in upholding the Divine essence with which they relate to one another. Hence, this third use of begotten expresses the Son as uncreated, being on the "God-side" of the Creator/creature distinction as to His Divine nature. 

The train tracks expressing the Son's deity in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.  

   The term "begotten" and the phrase "one substance" operate as train tracks upon which any discussion of the Son's deity, distinction from, and equality with the Father proceeds. We've spent past posts elaborating on the term "begotten" and its related truth of the Son's eternal generation from the Father. In today's post I want us to look at this other term that cements together the whole confession of the deity of the Son in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed - He being one substance with the Father. 

Why the Nicene Creed stresses the Son being "once substance" with the Father.

    At stake in the events leading up to the Council of Nicaea of 325 was defense against the teachings of the heretic Arius. David Wright, in an article "The Formation of the Trinity in the Early Church" summarizes Arius' view:

"But the path to the council of A.D. 381 was tortuous and strewn with obstacles. A long-lasting spate of controversy broke out ca. 318 over the teaching of a senior presbyter in Alexandria named Arius. He propounded what can be called a monotheism of the Father—that is to say, only the Father was truly God, and his Son or Word was not eternal and did not possess by nature any of the perfections of divinity. He was in fact a creature, even though unique, since through him was brought into being the rest of creation." 1

    As the dispute led to Nicaea 325, Arius insisted on the subordinate role and being of the Son as a creature of the highest order, God the Father's chief emissary. The orthodox defenders of Christ's deity discussed how to express the deity of Christ in their formation of the Creed in such a way that Arius' heresy could not wiggle out. 

    In as much as the term "begotten" was a strong term, the Arians were quite slippery in proposing their teachings, even using the term "begotten" as alleged proof that the Son had a beginning of existence from the Father. Athanasius, the main defender of the Son being "One substance" with the Father, records the Arians slick maneuvers in his "de decretis", a commentary of sorts of want went on after the Council of Nicaea 325 A.D.,

"When thus pressed, they will perhaps make an answer which has brought them into trouble many times already; We consider that the Son has this prerogative over others, and therefore is called Only-begotten, because He alone was brought to be by God alone, and all other things were created by God through the Son." 2

    Athanasius then writes later in his "De Decretis" that as the Council of Nicaea 325 was weighing how to defend against Arius and to show the true intent of expressing the Son as eternally begotten of the Father, it was there that Athanasius commented:

"but since the generation of the Son from the Father is not according to the nature of men, and not only like, but also inseparable from the essence of the Father, and He and the Father are one, as He has said Himself, and the Word is ever in the Father and the Father in the Word, as the radiance stands towards the light (for this the phrase itself indicates), therefore the Council, as understanding this, suitably wrote 'one in essence,' that they might both defeat the perverseness of the heretics, and show that the Word was other than originated things." 3

    We've already noted how the Nicene Creed's confession of the Son's deity (in both 325 and 381 versions) proceeds on twin tracks of the phrases "begotten" and "one in substance" (Greek word "homoousios"). As theologian Fred Sanders notes:

"For our purposes, it is enough to recall the logic of the creed only reaches the judgment "same-in-substance with the Father" by going through 'begotten' The only Son who can be same-in-substance is a Son begotten, not made."4

    The original Nicene 325 brings the section of the deity of the Son to this crescendo "being of one-substance with the Father". The focal point of this phrase is so much emphasized in the original creed that it stated in a variation from to one of the "begotten" statements:

("the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God")

We also see too that a short statement is added at the end of Nicaea 325:

"But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'—  they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church."

    What both versions of the Nicene Creed are doing then is asserting the distinction and union of the Son with the Father by the relation of begotten on the one hand; while affirming in no uncertain terms that the Son is of the exact same nature or substance as the Father as it pertains to the totality of deity within the Trinity. 

Practical applications of understanding the Son being one substance with the Father.

1. To say the Son is one substance with the Father is to say He is God as much and in the same way the Father is God, since both Divine Persons equally share the same Divine nature. As the Father is God who creates from nothing, so to is the Son (1 Corinthians 8:6). As the Scripture affirms repeated that "salvation is of the Lord" (Jonah 2:9; Isaiah 43:10-11), so to is salvation found in no one else and from no one else than God the Son, whether we talk of Him pre-incarnate or in His incarnation (Psalm 102:25-27; Hebrews 1:5-8; Acts 4:12; Romans 10:9-10). Salvation and creation require God to be the source. Jesus Christ is referred to as Creator and Savior in the Bible. Thus He has to be of the same essence as the Father.

2. Then one more practical point about Jesus being the same substance as the Father. When we pray, we pray to the Father, through the Son, by the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 2:8). Jesus is exalted in our worship and He is the one to whom and through whom we pray (Philippians 2:9-11; 1 Timothy 2:5; Hebrews 4:15-16; Hebrews 6:18-20). If the Son were not of the same substance as the Father, our worship and prayers to the Son would count as idolatry and blasphemy. 

Endnotes:

1. David Wright. The Formation Of The Doctrine Of The Trinity In The Early Church. Revival and Reformation. Volume 10:3. Page 81. 

2. Athanasius. De Decretis. Book One, Chapter three, section seven.  CHURCH FATHERS: De Decretis (Athanasius)

3. Athanasius. De Decretis. Book One, Chapter three, section nineteen.  CHURCH FATHERS: De Decretis (Athanasius)   

4. Fred Sanders. "Only Begotten Son", in the edited compilation of essays "On Classical Trinitarianism - Retrieving The Nicene Doctrine of the Triune God." IVP Press. 2025. page 424.

Post #14 1700 Years of the Nicene Creed - What The Nicene Creed Means By The Son Being "Begotten, Not Made"

Introduction:

      We are now in the section of the Nicene Creed's confession of the Son that reiterates the Son being begotten. Why re-emphasize a term that's been already introduced in the Nicene Creed? The begetting or filiation of the Son by the Father is an internal relation between the two Divine persons. The Father and the Son are equal, eternal, and of the same Divine nature in every respect, with the exception that the Father is the Father and the Son is the Son, with no confusion between their Divine identities. The Son being "the only begotten" is a Biblical description. Let's first review the terrain we covered in past posts. 

    The term "begotten" is a Biblical word that describes what distinguishes God the Son from God the Father (John 1:1,5; John 8:12; John 14:9; John 20:28; 1 John 5:20; Psalm 2:7; Hebrews 1:5). In posts #8 here Growing Christian Resources: Post #8 1700 Years of the Nicene Creed - "The only begotten Son of God" (P1 Arguments favorable to the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son) and #9 here Growing Christian Resources: Post #9 1700 Years of the Nicene Creed - "The only begotten Son of God" (P2 Why the doctrine of eternal generation holds despite opposing arguments to it) The term is tied to the doctrine of eternal generation of the Son. 

    As I noted up above, the Son being "begotten" is what distinguishes Him from the Father. John Gill, the eighteenth century Baptist Theologian, affirms the importance of the Son being "begotten" as a lone distinguishing feature of the Son that distinguishes Him from the Father and the Holy Spirit. This is important to note, since the classical doctrine of the Trinity asserts that all three Persons of the Godhead are co-equal, co-eternal, and of the same nature in every way while remaining distinct from one another. Gill notes:1

"This nature, which they in common partake of, is undivided and it is not parted between them, so that one has one part, and another a second, and another a third ; nor that one has a greater, and another a lesser part, which might distinguish them ; but the whole fulness of the Godhead is in each."

    Let me pause for a brief moment to remind the reader of our last post in which we looked at the Nicene Creed's confession of the Son being "true God of true God". Gill's comments reflect that truth of the Son being as much God by nature as the Father, hence both Persons being co-equal in every respect. Gill goes on:

"It is the personal relations, or distinctive relative properties, which belong to each Person, which distinguish them one from another ; as paternity in the first Person, filiation in the second, and, spiration in the third ; or more plainly, it is begetting Psalm 2:7, which peculiarly belongs to the first, it is being begotten, that is the personal relation, or relative property of the second Person, John 1:I4."

    Gill then concludes by laying out the equality of the Holy Spirit and how He is distinct from the Father and the Son by His procession and spiration from them. Gill's point in this second part of the quote is to show that the term "begotten" helps us see why the Son is distinct from the Father, while never denying His co-equality from the Father. 

    As we remind ourselves of the importance of this term "begotten" in the creed, and its connection to the doctrine of the Son's eternal generation, we can note two general observations.

1. Eternal generation (and thus "begotten") explains why the Son is eternal. 

    First, those who argue for the eternal generation of the Son teach that Father eternally communicates to Him the entire Divine nature (or at least His identity as the Son). According to theologian Matthew Barrett, the Divine essence is shared without division from The Father to The Son: 

"The concept takes us to the very heart of what it means for the Son to be a Son. He is eternally from the Father, which is why He is called Son. To be more specific, from all eternity, the Father communicates the one, simple, undivided divine essence to the Son."2

    The eighteenth century Baptist Theologian John Gill explains eternal generation a little differently as the Father communicating the Son's identity, whilst both share in the common essence:

"It is better to say, that they are self
existent, and exist together in the same undivided essence; and jointly, equally, and as early one as the other, possess the same nature’. Thus, there is not one person who, in the personal ordering of the Trinity, communicates the essence to the others. There are simply three, who relate personally to one another in the essence, with each person possessing the essence of him self." 3

    Both explanations of eternal generation fall within the pale of Bible-believing orthodoxy and views that draw from the Nicene Creed's confession of the Son being "begotten, not made". Eternal generation or begetting of the Son firstly explains why the Son is eternal. Notice a second general observation.

2. Eternal generation explains why the Son is the Son, and why the Father is the Father. 

    Then secondly, the distinguishing characteristic that defines the Son as "the Son" is in how the Father begets Him or what theologians call "filiates". Filiation conveys to the Son His identity as the Son, as noted already in my quotation of John Gill.

Our focus for today.

    As we look today at the phrase "begotten, not made", the eternal generation of the Son by the Father is meant to convey He is not created. As we saw above, the entailments of the term "begotten" mean the Son is eternal and that He is not to be confused with the Father in terms of His identity in the Trinity. This clause in the Nicene Creed gives us a third defining feature of "begotten", namely that the Son is uncreated. 

    Unlike the ancient Arians, who proclaimed "there was a time when the son was not" (akin to Jehovah Witnesses today who proclaim the Son to be God's "highest created being", hence viewing the Son as an act of creation by the Father) the Nicene Creed's emphasis upon the Son being begotten of the Father before all worlds envisions an eternal, uncreated act within the Trinity. 

    That act-of-relation between the Father and the Son is what establishes on the one hand the eternality and equality of the Son with the Father, while on the other hand eternal generation is what distinguishes the Son from the Father. This act-of-relation, the eternal generation of the Son, is an uncreated act. To see why this is practically important to all Christians who affirm the deity of the Son in lines with the Bible and the Nicene Creed's affirmations, we need to grasp why the Son of God could be our Savior if He is "begotten, not made". 

Why the Son must be "begotten, not made" to be our Savior

    The whole matter of the Nicene Creed's insistence on the Son being "eternally begotten of the Father" is to show He is not only the Creator in union with the Father, but also the Redeemer. As we will explore in later posts in this series, the whole section that deals with the humanity of the incarnate Son focuses quite heavily on the mission of the incarnation - the cross and its application to sinners so moved by the Spirit to believe in the Son. 

    Theologian Michael Reeves delivered a wonderful address entitled: "The Nicene Creed vs Arianism" here: https://youtu.be/arIPKIg013A.

    As for our focal phrase in today's post "Begotten, not made", Reeves notes the following observation:

"When one begets, you beget one who is the same being as yourself. Humans beget humans, being of the same nature as themselves. God did not beget the world, He created it. Just as humans make or create cake - something unlike themselves - God created or made the world. Humans beget humans and humans make cake. God begets the Son. Since begetting is about the same being, when we say that God begat the Son, we should expect it to mean that He is one in nature with the Son. That is the meaning of the Father begetting the Son".

    What would have happened if the Son were a created being, as the ancient Arians asserted and modern-day Jehovah witnesses insist? This phrase "begotten, not made" drives home the point we find in Isaiah 43:10-11 for instance:

"You are My witnesses, 'declares the Lord, 'And My servant whom I have chosen, So that you may know and believe Me and understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, and there will be none after Me. 11 'I, even I, am the Lord, and there is no savior besides Me."

    Uniformly the testimony of Scripture is that "salvation is of the Lord" (Jonah 2:9) and as the Apostle Paul expressed in his doxology at the end of his eleven chapter exposition on the doctrine of salvation in Romans 11:36 "For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen."

    The Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. and Constantinople in 381 asserted this phrase "begotten, not made" in their respective versions of the creed to drive home the point that no created Son could had provided salvation. This is the fatal flaw in modern Jehovah Witness theology. 

How the Son being "begotten, not made" has relevance in modern evangelism

    I recall years ago a group of Jehovah Witnesses handing out pamphlets advertising a local conference at their "Kingdom Hall" meeting place: 

"Come hear about how Jesus Christ is the Savior of the World".

    I pointed out to them that according to their theology, there is no way Jesus Christ could be Savior of the World. I took them to the above passages I cited. I concluded that they either had to admit their theology was in error, or stop proclaiming that Jesus Christ is Savior of the World. They of course would not do either. 

    Nevertheless, the phrase "begotten, not made" safeguards the central affirmation of the Gospel that the Apostle Peter affirms in Acts 10:38 "Jesus Christ is LORD". Or again, Paul writes in Romans 10:9 "If you will confess with your mouth Jesus is LORD, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."

    Both Scriptures cited above use the Divine title "LORD" or "Jehovah/Yahweh" to show the Son's equality with the Father, as well as to demonstrate that He is able to save sinners just as much as the Father, since He Himself is God.  

Closing thoughts for today:

    The whole point of the Nicene Creed's affirmation of the Son being "begotten, not made" is to affirm three important truths. 

1. First, the Son as "begotten, not made" means He is eternally equal with the Father. He is uncreated as the Father is uncreated. 

2. Secondly, by being "begotten, not made", the Son is of the same substance as the Father, meaning the Father and the Son are united as One God. 

3. Lastly, the Son being "begotten, not made", means He alone, touching His Divine nature, could be our Savior, since only God can be the source of our salvation. 

Endnotes:

1. John Gill. Body of Divinity. Pages 98-99, Book 2. Consulted from the Digital Version available on Internet Archive here Gill's complete body of practical and doctrinal divinity: : being a system of evangelical truths, deduced from the Sacred Scriptures. : Gill, John, 1697-1771 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

2. True God from True God - Credo Magazine

3. Quoted from the periodical "Perichoresis" - Volume 20:1, article by Jonathan Swan: "John Gill (1697-1771) And the Eternally Begotten Word of God. John-Gill-(1697-1771)-and-the-Eternally-Begotten-Word-of-God.pdf

     

Post #5 Principles For Miraculous Healing - Patience by the Word of God

Introduction:

    In the last two posts in this series we handled issues related to what I am calling "principles for miraculous healing". We first looked at the place of miracles in our world, noting whether or not they're even possible, or identifiable. We concluded they were and even offered an argument that not only demonstrates the rationality for belief in miracles, but also the added bonus of offering an argument for miracles as proof of God's existence.

    We then began our exploration into Jesus' two miracles recorded in Luke 5:12-26. Our first principle had to do with the fact that it is appropriate to pray for God's will to be done when praying for healing. 

    In today's post we continue on with our series as we learn from Jesus’ ministry about miraculous healing. One purpose God works forth in the process of our waiting and praying for healing, or perhaps in our overall Christian growth is cultivating patience by the Word of God. I glean three related truths that pertain to this overall principle of "patience by the Word of God". 

1. Prayer is necessary to cultivate
    patience. Luke 5:14-16

2. Patience by obedience to God. Luke
    5:13-15

3. Prayer to be strengthened by God.
    Luke 5:16

1. Jesus emphasized prayer in the course of His ministry. Luke 5:14-16

    Notice Luke 5:14-16 “And He ordered him to tell no one, ‘But go and show yourself to the priest and make an offering for your cleansing, just as Moses commanded, as a testimony to them.’ 15 But the news about Him was spreading even farther, and large crowds were gathering to hear Him and to be healed of their sicknesses. 16 But Jesus Himself would often slip away to the wilderness and pray.”  

    Near the beginning of His ministry, Jesus warned against haste in telling others about His identity. He wanted to make sure the unfolding of His Messianic and Divine identity proceeded along the Father’s timetable, rather than unnecessary and fickle human popularity. 

    In so doing this, Jesus was teaching His listeners to wait and rely on God’s Word, rather than feelings. When it comes to praying for healing, God may seem to us to delay. At times, God may want to develop in us certain character traits, or to help us see where we’re at in our relationship to Him. 

2. Patience by obedience to God. Luke 5:13-15

   His command for the man to go to the priest for validation of the healing is is in line with the Mosaic Law. Leviticus 13:6 “The priest shall look at him again on the seventh day, and if the infection has faded and the mark has not spread on the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him clean; it is only a scab. And he shall wash his clothes and be clean.”  

     Jesus’ healing of this leper was another “first”. You can comb the entire Old Testament and never find one example of any Israelite healed of leprosy in Israel. Gentiles like Naaman were healed of their leprosy (compare 2 Kings 5). Yet not one Jewish person. Jesus did a first here. 

    What did he want the man to do though? Be faithful to the Scripture. He was to show the priest what took place, so that there is a testimony. Such a testimony would prove an agreement between the Law of Moses and the Lawgiver who revealed it in the flesh. 

    Doing things God’s way, by His Word, is always better than our way. Romans 15:4 “For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, so that through perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.”  Jesus then by His miracles taught patience by the Word of God by first encouraging obedience to it. 

3. Prayer to be strengthened by God. Luke 5:16

     Then right after the miracle, Jesus modeled a second important truth relevant to being patient by God’s Word as we either wait for healing or pray for healing – the importance of prayer for strengthening. Notice what we read in Luke 5:16 “But Jesus Himself would often slip away to the wilderness and pray.”  Jesus spent time in prayer, since in His ministry His aim was to do His Father’s will. God expressed the gift of healing through Jesus and the Apostles through their prayers. God confirmed their message. With that foundation laid, God had ordained to mainly use His providential work through prayer, rather than by a specific gift of healing as He had done in the Biblical era. 

    Today, God can, if He so chooses, heal through prayer, rather than the route of miraculous giftings. James 5:13-16 “Is anyone among you suffering? Then he must pray. Is anyone cheerful? He is to sing praises. 14 Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; 15 and the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him.”  

    This is why we have a Bible, to guide us as we either wait for God to heal, or trust Him for other purposes that may or may not include healing, at least on this side of eternity. 

Closing thought

    We saw today the principle of patience by the Word of God. Next time we will look at more principles about physical healing from Jesus ministry. 

Post #13 1700 Years of the Nicene Creed - What is meant by Jesus Christ being "true God of true God" in the Nicene Creed

Introduction:

    We are continuing through our study of the Nicene Creed (or more specifically, the Constantinopolitan-Nicene Creed of 381 A.D). Our studies took us through the first article or major doctrinal tenet - the oneness of God in being and He identified first as the Person of the Father. 

    We have in the last several posts dove into the second article of the Creed, the co-equality of the Son with the Father in His deity and their union as One God. Three descriptive phrases in the Nicene Creed express the Son's equality of essence with the Father. 

    First, The Son of God is "the only begotten, meaning He is eternally the Son because He is eternally of the same essence as the Father, while distinct from Him in identity. The Son's being begotten is why He is the Son and not the Father, just as the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son distinguishes Him from the first two Divine persons in the Trinity. 

    Second, the Son is "God of God", referring to how the Father and Son are not two deities but one deity, or what I call a "quantitative description" that highlights their Divine union. 

    Thirdly, the Son is "light of light", equal in glory and majesty with the Father.

    As we pan out from that immediate context of the Creed we have covered so far, we see the overall section on the Person of the Son as confessed in His true deity and total humanity. I've subdivided the section into three broad divisions. I'll put in bold print what we've covered in this series, and then underline our focus for today regarding the Person of the Son.

1. The Deity of the Son.

"And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten from the Father before all ages, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through Whom all things came into existence."

2. The humanity of the Son.

"Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down from the heavens, and was incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man."

3. The 1st and 2nd Comings (or Advents) of the Son.

"and was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried, and rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures and ascended to heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father, and will come again with glory to judge living and dead, of Whose kingdom there will be no end."1

     In our time today we will look at that part of the Creed that describes the Lord Jesus Christ as "true God from true God". 

What difference is there in saying Jesus Christ is "God of God" vs "true God from true God"?

    It was in post #11 of this series that I had us look closely at the Nicene Creed's confession of the Son as being "God of God" here Growing Christian Resources: Post #11 1700 Years of the Nicene Creed - The Nicene Creed's Meaning Of The Son Being "God of God". Some readers may wonder what if any difference is there between that line and our current focus of the Son being "true God from true God"? When I look at these two lines in the Nicene Creed, we find the noun "God" used in two different senses: a quantitative sense and a qualitative sense.

    The first sense is what I call a "quantitative sense", meaning that the oneness of God's essence or nature is in view. To say the Son is "God of God" is describing the act of the Father eternally generating the Son. Eternal generation attempts to explain how the Son is distinct from the Father while being in union of equality and eternality with Him. 

    To put it another way, numerically we count one God, not two Gods, when using the language of the Son being "God of God" with respect to the Father. The Athanasian Creed helps us a little bit to grasp what I'm talking about now concerning the "quantitative sense" of the noun "God":

"For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit. But the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit have one divinity, equal glory, and coeternal majesty."2

    The second sense of the noun "God" is what I call a "qualitative sense". When we talk of the term "God" in this way, it refers to how each member of the Godhead (Godhead meaning "Divine Nature" or "Divine Essence" and "Member" meaning an eternal partaker of that Divine nature or essence) are each qualitatively bearing the totality of what it means to be God.3 

Why we use phrases "God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit" to describe the Three Persons of the Trinity

    When we use terms like "God the Father" or "God the Son" or "God the Holy Spirit", we're not postulating three deities. Instead, we're recognizing how each Person of the Trinity bears the totality of what it means to be God by nature. The Athanasian Creed again provides help in seeing what I'm calling "the qualitative use" of the term "God":

"Thus the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. However, there are not three gods, but one God. The Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Spirit is Lord. For as we are obliged by Christian truth to acknowledge every Person singly to be God and Lord."

    Another ancient Creedal Statements, the Chalcedonian Definition of the Son's two natures from 451 A.D, starts in this manner (note the language of "truly God").

"Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood."

    Here we find the Chalcedonian Definition helping us further, showing how the Son as "true God" is "complete in Godhead" or completely God. Since the Divine nature or essence is indivisible, infinite, and eternal, it is impossible to speak of the oneness of God apart from either any members of the Trinity or the Trinity as a whole. 

The Son as "true God of true God" 

    To say the Son is "true God of true God" speaks not only of the totality of Divine perfection the Son is in His Deity, but also how He eternally relates to the Father as Begotten to Begetter. For the Father, He eternally relates to the Son as unbegotten to begotten. Theologian Fred Sanders in a conference message entitled "Very God of Very God" notes about this phrase in the Nicene Creed:

"God from true God means that within the reality of God there is this relation between these two (the Father and the Son").4

    Theologians refer to this act of relating as "eternal relations of origin", meaning that begetting and being begotten are what alone distinguishes the Father and the Son from one another. 

    As I noted at the start, although co-equal in every respect, the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Father. Nevertheless, the Father is true God by nature and the Son is of the selfsame Divine nature, ever being true God in every respect. 

How "true God from true God" is a good commentary on Jesus Divine identity in Scripture 

   As I said already, the phrase "true God of true God" is expressing what I noted earlier, a "qualitative" description of how each Person is by nature God in their own right. In John 1:1 we read this qualitative use of "God" describing the Son: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." 

    The term "Word" is in reference to the Person of the Son. Normally in the New Testament, whenever we see any of the other Divine Persons mentioned, God the Father will often be referred to as simply "God" to express Him in this qualitative sense, much like the Son. 

    Hence, to say "The Word was with God" is to say the Word was with the Father, who by nature is God. Likewise, to see John say "and the Word was God" is to say the Word was God by nature. These are qualitative statements in John's opening verse, captured in summary form by the Nicene Creed's usage of the phrase for the Son "true God from true God".

Closing thoughts:

    As we draw this post to a close, we've noted how the Son is "true God of true God". We discovered the following entailments of this phrase.

1. The Son is truly God by nature. 

    To say the Son is "true God of true God" is to say He is in a qualitative sense the totality of deity, expressing every perfection as much as the Father. 

2. The Son is truly God in the same way as the Father. 

    This phrase second captures how the Son in His eternal relation with the Father is "begotten" from Him. The other phrases preceding "true God of true God", namely "God of God" and "light of light" describe what we will discuss in later posts, namely how the Son is of the same substance as the Father or one in being. The phrase "true God of true God" is a qualitative statement, meaning that the Son's deity is inseparable from the Father's eternal generation of the Son. 

3. The Son as "true God of true God" shows an eternal relating in action from Father to Son. 

    In addition to the Son's personal nature as God and His eternal relating to the Father as the only begotten Son, the phrase "true God of true God" shows movement within the Trinity between the Father and the Son. The Father begets or filiates the Son, with the Son in turn revealing the invisible Father in their shared glory (see John 17:1-5). 

    This phrase is appropriately in the center of the section on the Son's deity within the Nicene Creed. The totality of Him being God by nature establishes the overall Creed's confession that He is of the same substance as the Father, with both being one God by nature.  

Endnotes:

1. Anything worth studying and benefitting requires careful thinking. My hope is this series of posts prove uplifting to the reader as well as informative. The whole point of the Creed was to offer a summary of essential Christian truths, as well as to provide a confession of faith across the centuries.

2. John 10:30 gives Scriptural authority for what this phrase in the Nicene Creed is attempting to capture, where Jesus says "I and the Father are One". Jesus taught His disciples about the union He and the Father have in deity by employing the "He is in me, and I in Him" language (John 14:11-12). That's using the noun "God" quantitatively, emphasizing that with respect to the Divine essence, the Father and Son are "One".

3.  The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit are each Divine subjects (called "Persons" or "personae" from the Latin Church Father Tertullian or "hypostases" from the Greek speaking church fathers like Gregory of Nyssa). These Divine subjects act in unity of will, power, and intellect (not as three centers of consciousness as if often expressed among contemporary theologians). 

4. Fred Sanders: True God from True God. Readers will find this lecture from Dr. Sanders to be an excellent summary of our focus phrase "True God from True God". This particular quote is at about the 29:15 mark in the video.