Bishop's Epistle: Creed of Nicæa (Creed of the 318) Affirmed

Creed of Nicæa (Creed of the 318) Affirmed

Modalistic Monarchianism

(This article is excerpted from my book "Godhead Theology")

Both the Council and Creed of Nicæa (A.D. 325) have been much misunderstood by non-Trinitarians (and Trinitarians alike) for such a long time, that, I fear it will require more than this humble author’s attempt to bring about a correction. Since Godhead Theology has taken a stand in this arena, as a defender of said Council and Creed, it behooves us to undertake a demonstration of how the Creed of Nicæa would be interpreted and affirmed by Modalists of the fourth and twenty-first centuries.

In order to arrive at an honest interpretation of the text, one must strive to understand the intent of the framers. Any attempt to comprehend the Creed through modern usage of the terms found in the Creed is sure to meet with certain disappointment. Therefore, a long and ardent study of the debate of the first 300 years of the Church is absolutely required before approaching the Creed. Your humble author has devoted the last thirty years of his life to just such a study. The commentary that is presented in this writing is sure to offend the tritheist who tout themselves as Trinitarians, and will bring surprise and wonderment to those in the Oneness camp that have been taught to despise all things Nicaean. The reader should remember that the Council was dominated by the Modalistic Monarchian bishops present, and it was their watchword “homoousia” that saved Christendom from the Arian heresy of Subordinationism. The Creed of Nicæa is the paragon of post apostolic (the church after the death of the Apostles) Christology.

So, then, given here is our short commentary of the Creed of the 318.

The Creed of Nicæa

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 - these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes.

Hello friends, I am a full time biblical researcher. I rely on freewill love offerings (from those of you who benefit from my work) and book sales for my support. Once you have read this paper please consider leaving a small donation at the link provided here? Thank you for your support. -JLH

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=4EXSWA2A47ARC

Commentary

I. Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα Θεὸν

We believe in one God,

The shibboleth of Christianity is the belief in One Only God. The Shema (Deut 6:4) is the gate keeper of the Faith. “Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God is one LORD.” (See Isa 44:8, 45:5, 18, 21-22; 46:5, 9.)

II. Πατέρα παντοκράτορα

the Father Almighty,

Here, the Creed acknowledges the Father to be the fountain of Deity. All “God-stuff” originates and flows out of Him. There can be but ONE Almighty—which He is. In both the Old and New Testaments we are informed that the Father is the only true God. (See, Isa 63:6, 1 Cor 8:6, John 17:1, 3.) The idea of “FATHER” is one of progenitor, nourisher, protector, and upholder. He is acknowledged as the Father by the Psalmist (68:5; 89:26), and the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah (see Isa 9:6; 63:16; 64:8 and Jer 3:19; 31:9 respectively). Moreover, the New Testament magnified His capacity as creator, nourisher, protector, and upholder of all things in heaven and earth, both visible and invisible (Col 1:16), by His eternal Word (see John 1:1-3 and Heb 11:3 respectively). Gods fatherhood is abundantly demonstrated in both Testaments.

III. πάντων ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων ποιητήν

maker of all things visible and invisible;

The Father is acclaimed by the Creed as the Creator of all things. In Isaiah 44:24 Yahweh states, “I am the Lord that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;...” (The student of the Creed must remember this when interpreting line IX.) The prophet Malachi acknowledges one Father, who is the one God that created us (Mal 2:10). Hilary of Poitiers (A.D. 310-367), wrote: “The Father is He to whom all that exists owes its origin. ... Moreover, His existence is existence in itself, and He does not derive His existence from anywhere else. Rather, from Himself, and in Himself, He possesses the actuality of His being. ... He is always beyond location, because He is not contained; always before the ages, because time comes from Him.… God, however, is present everywhere; and everywhere He is totally present. ... Outside of Him there is nothing, and it is eternally His characteristic that He shall always exist. This is the truth of the mystery of God, And of the impenetrable nature which this name Father expresses; God is invisible, unutterable, and infinite. ... He has, as ... in the word Father a name to indicate His nature; but He is Father as such. For He does not, as humans do, received His Fatherhood from elsewhere. He Himself is unbegotten and eternal; and it is His property, eternally in Himself, that He shall always be.”

IV. καὶ εἰς ἕνα Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ,

And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God,

The Creed emphasizes a particular Christ. There are those that would preach a different Jesus than the Jesus of the holy Scripture. The Creed knows but One Jesus, as should we. The Christology of the Church must be that of the prophets, apostles and Jesus Christ, Himself (Eph 2:20).

John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
Luke 1:35 “And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”

One is said to be the “son of” whatever he exemplifies or manifests. One who dwells in the desert is said to be the a “Son of the Desert.” Also, in this way the brothers James and John were said to be “Sons of Thunder;” and, Joses’ name was changed by the apostles to Barnabas (“Son of Consolation” Acts 4:36). Thus, these persons were understood to be the very nature, character, or essence of what they were the “sons” of. When Jesus is called the Son of God we are to understand that He manifests the very nature, character and essence of the Father. Understanding this helps us comprehend the encounter between Jesus and the Jews in John chapter 10, where Jesus had said that He and the Father were One. The Jews then took up stones to stone Him. Jesus asked them for what good work they were preparing to stone Him. They said clearly, “For no any good work, but because you being a man have made yourself God.” Jesus, in His defense said, “You say I blaspheme because I said, I am the Son of God.” To the Jews, then, Jesus had called Himself God because He said He was the Son of God. As one is the “Son of the Desert”, or “Sons of Thunder”, or the “Son of Consolation,” Jesus was the Son of God. He embodied all that was God the Father (John 10:30ff; 1 Timothy 3:16; Colossians 2:9). This, then, makes Peter’s confession more powerful than we ever knew, when he proclaimed: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God” —Matthew 16:16.

V. γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς μονογενῆ

begotten from the Father, only-begotten,

When the Creed speaks of Jesus being “begotten from the Father” one should not think in the terms of human begetting and birth. The ancients did not think in such a manner. The term μονογενῆ - monogenē, means: unique, one of its kind. The begetting of the Son was a unique begetting. An example of the ancients’ understanding may be found in the writings of Athenagoras of Athens. He announces that the Son is the thought of the Father. For him the plurality of God is not a plurality of self rational persons, but of modal aspects of the Deity. The Son/Word is the thought of the Father; the Holy Spirit is the action or the animation in the universe produced by the “Word” (thought) of the Father. Again, not different moral persons, but different modal manifestations. For the early churchmen that gave us the Creed of Nicæa, God’s thought/word (His logos) was His Son, because He “birthed” it in his knos (mind). There is no separate God-person here, only the thought/word of the Father called His logos.

Athenagoras said “We do indeed think also that God has a Son - please let no one laugh at the idea of God having a Son! This is not a case of the myths of the poets who make the gods out to be no better than men; we have no such ideas about God the Father or the Son. The Son of God is Word of the Father in thought and power. All things were made through Him and after His fashion. The Father and the Son are one, the Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son by the powerful union of the Spirit - the Son of God is Mind and Word of the Father.”

VI. τουτέστιν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρος
that is, from the substance/being of the Father,

Jesus was the same “ousia” as the Father. In no uncertain terms the Creed is stating that Jesus is the same Being as the Father.

John 1:18 “No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.” (NASB)

When we consider Jesus being the Son of God, because of His “generation,” we have the event of God Himself being birthed into our world through the matrix of a woman’s womb. The Greek New Testament renders John 1:18 thusly, “θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε: μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο. Here John calls Jesus “monogenēs theos” English: “only (uniquely) begotten God.” In this case, it is the Incarnated God that is called the Son—because of His having undergone generation. Therefore, in this sense, it is not the humanity of Christ alone, that the Scripture designates as the Son, but the God-man as He is in Himself. It is in this sense that the ancient Monarchians viewed the Son of God as God. In this writer’s opinion, this definition must be allowed because of the weight of manuscript evidence for John 1:18.

VII. Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ, Φῶς ἐκ Φωτός, Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ,

God from God, light from light, true God from true God,

Jesus taught that He proceeded from the Father. He was in fact, God from God, Light from Light, and true God from true God. Lest we get it mixed up, and suppose that Jesus is “another God,” or “God also,” The Creed informs us differently. John wrote of this Light: “In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world” —John 1:4-9.

Jesus was the true Light of Yahweh God shining into a world full of darkness that had blinded men. Before this Light the darkness fled. This Light was not another Light from God, it was God! Some have supposed that Jesus is the Light of God as one would light one torch from another. Not so! That would mean that two somethings share the same Light. Jesus is not God, or Light, as if the deity of God, or the Light of God was shared with Him, and thereby making Him another God, or another Light. As would be the case if we are considering torches. No, Jesus is Light from Light as the Sun and it Rays. The Rays of the Sun are the same Sun in a different way. Jesus is not like God, He IS God in a different way. Jesus has not been illumined by God, He IS the Light of God shining into the created universe, dispelling the darkness.

VIII. γεννηθέντα, οὐ ποιηθέντα, ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί,

begotten not made, of one being with the Father,

It is here, in these two statements of the Creed, that the framers accomplish their purpose. The Arians said that the Son of God was actually a created being. It was the purpose of the Council to frame a Creed that the Subordinationist could not sign. The “begotten not made” clause is a frontal assault on the Arians and is, therefore, against their fundamental belief system. The “begotten” is to be thought of in the sense that Athenagoras set forth. God “birthed” His thought/word. Thus, the thought/word of God, then, is said to be His Son, by virtue of the begetting of it. Further, the thought/word of God (His Son) is Himself in a revealed, intelligible way.

The second of these two statements “of one being with the Father” is the core of the Council’s attack on Arius and his followers. It is, indeed, the coup de grâce delivered by the orthodox to the Arians. The word “homoousion” which identified Jesus as the same being/substance/essence as the Father, was supplied by the Modalists. It had been their watchword for, at least 100 years, as is demonstrated by the separate episodes of Paul of Somosata and the two Dionysii in the previous century. The Subordinationist could have lived with homoiousion (like being), but not homoousion (same being).

IX. δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο τά τε ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ τὰ ἐν τῇ γῇ,
through Whom all things came into being, things in heaven and things on earth,

“Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by which also he made the worlds” —Hebrews 1:2.

Greek dia as found in Hebrews 1:2 (also, in this line of the Creed) and translated in the KJV as by (in our Creed translated “through”), is the instrumental cause; of the ground or reason of which anything is or is not done; by reason of, because of... . The Creed has already told us that it was the Father that created all things visible and invisible (line III). Here, we are shown how the creation was carried out: i.e. by the Word of God. The “logos” the thought/word of God. God spoke and His universe leapt into existence. Therefore, God the Father created dia, by or through His begotten Son. (We must be careful to point out that the begotten Son is not understood as a separate God-person from the Father, but the thought/word of God — the revealed, intelligible God.)

Of course there is a sense in which the Father created with His Son in view. This, because creation would have been an unjust act without the Son of God redeeming fallen man in God’s foreknowledge. Because God is all knowing, He knew His creation would fall from His grace. Knowing this before hand, He created all things with the redemption in view. That is, the Father predicated all creation on the cross. Thus, the Creed can say, “δι’ οὗ,” or “through whom.” The “whom” was the Son of God crucified before the foundation of the world (Rev 13:8).

X. τὸν δι’ ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν, κατελθόντα,

Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down,

The Wisdom of The Lord declared: If man cannot come up to me, then I will go down to him. Jesus was the “uniquely begotten God” (John 1:18). The Creed states “Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down,” The truth declared in this line of the Creed is the Incarnation of the Father in Mary’s womb, and the reason for that Incarnation: To whit, the salvation of sinful mankind. Perhaps the Apostle Paul said it best when he wrote “To whit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses to them;” (2 Cor 5:17). Paul also wrote, “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest[ed] in flesh,…” (1 Tim 3:16). Thus, to this end the Apostle John wrote, “And you know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin” (1 John 3:5). Therefore, when John the Baptist introduced Jesus to the world he cried, “Behold! The lamb of God which takes (Grk: bears) away the sin of the world” (John 1:29).

XI. καὶ σαρκωθέντα, καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα,
and became incarnate and became man,

Truly, it was the Logos, the Word of God, that became Incarnated in human flesh. But, make no mistake, the Logos was not a separate God-person from God the Father. It was His Word (that was in very fact Himself, John 1:1) projected into a virgin’s womb. When Mary believed the Word of the Angel, she conceived by that Word. The Word of God was tabernacled in the world in a human body (John 1:14). This line of the Creed acknowledges the dual nature of Christ. The true God from true God took on humanity in the Incarnation.

XII. παθόντα, καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ,
and suffered, and rose again on the third day,

The suffering Messiah is prophesied of in Isaiah chapter 53, among other places of the Old Testament. Not the least of which is the prophet Zechariah’s prediction that Yahweh would be pierced (Zech 12: 4, 10). The fulfillment of such prognos-tications, as is recorded in the four Gospels, provides the surety of the creedal statement, “and suffered.”

The suffering of the Son of God was of some concern to the ancients. It is of some interest that this line of the Creed comes after the logos assuming manhood, as is stated in the previous line, “and became man.” Patripassianism (God the Father suffered) is avoided by isolating the passion of Christ to His humanity. Though cognizant of this fact, the bishops had not yet hammered out the precise wording to articulate its concepts. Such codification would wait until the Nestorian controversy and the Council of Chalcedon in the next century (Nestorian controversy, A.D. 431; Chalcedon, A.D. 451).

The resurrection of Christ on the third day does not only validate Jesus’ prediction that the only sign given to His generation would be the sign of Jonah, but assures the Christian of a sure resurrection. The bones of the founders of other world religions remain in their dusty graves; while, the grave of the founder of Christianity is empty. The empty tomb in Jerusalem presages a general resurrection of all believers. Pagan philosophy has speculated at the eternality of the soul, but never in their most adventurous dreams did they guess that the body would get up and join it.

XIII. ἀνελθόντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρανούς, ἐρχόμενον κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς.

and ascended to the heavens, and will come to judge the living and dead,

Here the Creed affirms what every Christian knows: Christ ascended to Heaven and will return again as the Great Judge, to judge all men of the deeds done in their bodies, whether good or evil. The creedal statement “to judge the living and dead,” speaks to a general resurrection of both sinners and saints. Jesus had taught a general resurrection of the dead– literally. John recorded his words, “... for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.” (John 5:28-29; cf. Dan 12:2; Acts 24:15; Rev 20:11).

XIV. καὶ εἰς τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα.
And in the Holy Spirit.

The 318 bishops, here, affirm their belief and faith in the Holy Spirit, without identifying the Spirit in any way. This Creed is totally void of Trinitarian language that is found in later creeds and formulas of faith, which assign to the Holy Spirit a separate identity from the Father and the Son.

XV. Τοὺς δὲ λέγοντας Ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, καὶ Πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἦν, καὶ ὅτι Ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων εγένετο,

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,

In this line of the Creed we have arrived at the anathemas. In modern thought one does not expect (or accept, for that matter) the Church to curse those who hold or preach wrong views. The ancients had no such proclivities. People that taught a wrong Jesus were damning to the salvation of those that followed them, and should, themselves, be damned.

Here, after an unexpected statement concerning the Holy Spirit, the Creed returns to its Christological mission, and renews its attack on Subordinationism. This line of the Creed views, with the utmost contempt, any who would dare suggest that the “one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God,” of line IV, was not eternal. Of course, as Modalist, we can agree to the eternality of the Son of God as it, was then, and is now, understood that the Son, i.e. the Logos is God’s thought/word from silence (Bishop Ignatius, of Antioch, A.D. 107; Athenagoras of Athens, A.D. 176/77 ). Or, in a more particular way, the Modalist might say that the Son proper, i.e. in physical form, had a certain day in which He was born, by the Father undergoing generation. In this view, the eternality of Christ has His deity in view. So, in this sense it is not the Son proper (Mary’s baby) that is eternal, but rather the God from God, the Light from Light, the true God from true God, who became the Son.

XVI. ἢ Ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσιάς φάσκοντας εἶναι ἢ κτιστόν ἢ τρεπτόν ἢ ἀλλοιωτὸν τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ,

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 Creed states in clear terms that the Son of God is: God from God, Light from Light and True God from True God. Christ is not another God-person from the Father Almighty. Not as one would light one torch from another—thus, making two torches, but as Rays from the Sun. The deity of the Son and the deity of the Father is the self same ousia, or, in this line of the Creed, hypostasis. Origen had said the the Father and the Son were both eternal, but were not the same hypostasis; Arius argued that not only was Jesus not the same hypostasis as the Father, but neither was He eternal. By this Creed, both men and their followers were anathematized, as the next, and final, line of the Creed makes plain.

XVI. τούτους ἀναθεματίζει ἡ ἁγία καθολικὴ καὶ ἀποστολικὴ ἐκκλησία.

these the catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes.

In this final line, the bishops at Nicæa take the high ground for the cognomen they claim for themselves. They represent the “catholic and apostolic Church.” Catholic (universal) and apostolic (of, or, from the Apostles) are used as ad-jectives for Church. The formula is painfully clear: All that cannot affirm this statement of Faith are cursed by the catholic and apostolic Church, consequently, then, placed outside of fellowship.

Conclusion

To conclude this commentary on the Creed of Nicæa we will only say: There is nothing trinitarian (in the modern since of that doctrine) in this Creed, nor in the Council that produced it. The rejection of this formula of faith by the twentieth and twenty-first century Christians, calling themselves Oneness, is uncalled for. By doing so, we have been robbed of a rich history that should be a major part of our doctrinal underpinning.

Apostolically Speaking

† David Ignatius

If the ministry of the Bishop is a blessing to you, please consider leaving a monetary gift of any amount at the link provided here:

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=4EXSWA2A47ARC

The above is an excerpt from the author's book entitled "Godhead Theology" which may be purchased from Amazon at the following link:

http://www.amazon.com/Godhead-Theology-Modalism-Original-Orthodoxy/dp/1516983521/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1444861346&sr=1-1&refinements=p_27%3ABishop+Jerry+Hayes

Defense of 1 Timothy 3:16 (Answering Objections to Modalism)

http://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2019/06/defense-of-first-timothy-316-answering.html

Godhead Theology is a study of Christian Godhead theology. ... Was He God or not? In Godhead Theology Bishop Jerry Hayes follows that debate through the first 300 years of the Church's history. Our book is in five sections: Section One ... demonstrates Modalistic Monarchianism as the original orthodoxy of the Chruch; Section Two introduces the Apostolic Creed ... ; Section Three is an affirmation of Modalistic Monarchianism; Section Four is Modalism's responses to objection from the pluralists Trinitarians, Binitarians, Arians and Semi-Arians. Included are two comprehensive indexes: Subject Index and Scripture Index. 613 pages.

Own this classic book today by ordering from the link provided here:https://www.amazon.com/Godhead-Theology-Modalism-Original-Orthodoxy/dp/1516983521/ref=sr_1_4?keywords=Bishop+Jerry+hayes&qid=1554244653&s=books&sr=1-4

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT BY

PURCHASING OUR BOOKS OF YOUR LIBRARY

Be sure to listen and subscribe to the Bishop's Podcast: Apostolic Bishop, at:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-apostolicbishops-podcast/id1472262392?fbclid=IwAR2FlRYnNsw5Vu_Bz4PjyEdiAxFMawhtD2BFr_S7WysrpFcYjuQYSHGAlZ

Bishop's Epistle

Monday, September 7, 2015

Creed of Nicæa (Creed of the 318) Affirmed

No comments:

Post a Comment

Bishop, Abbot General