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.
No comments:
Post a Comment