ROUGHLY EDITED COPY
CONFESSIONS 1
CON1-Q015
JANUARY 2005
CAPTIONING PROVIDED BY:
CAPTION FIRST, INC.
P.O. BOX 1924
LOMBARD, IL 60148
* * * * *
This text is being provided in a rough-draft format.
Communications Access Realtime Translation (CART) is
provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility
and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings.
* * * *
>> DAVID: In my reading, I notice the theological value
the Nicene Creed placed on the term being of one substance.
What theological dilemma was addressed by this phrase, and
against whom was spoken?
>> DR. KLAUS DETLEV SHULTZ: Let us revisit once again the
Nicene Creed with your question you have just asked, David.
As I have said before, I have referred to the presbyter of
Alexandria called Arius who in 318 stood up and spoke
clearly out that he did not believe that Jesus Christ was of
the same substance as the Father, but rather, there is a
subordinate position within the Trinity, and that Jesus
Christ, therefore, does serve a subordinate position, rather
than just one of being the same as the Father.
The Council of Nicaea at 318 clearly spoke out against
this because they believed that if Jesus Christ is not
considered as God Himself, he would endanger, or we would be
endangered, by our own salvation. As you know, any human
being that dies will not resurrect again unless he is helped
by God. And in case of Jesus Christ, He resurrects because
he is God. For this reason we must understand that there is
a very important theological concern here behind Arius'
challenge to the orthodoxy. And that orthodox theologians
such as Athanasius and then also Constantine I, the Emperor
of the Roman Empire then, clearly realized that they had to
speak up out against that position that Arius held.
Of course, 325 did not solve all problems. As I have said
also, it continued within the church to be a debate as to
how one understands *homo ouzious, of the same substance.
And the problem here is, perhaps, the relationship of
philosophy, the West against the East. The East itself chose
a word for substance that is called *Houpostasis, and the
Greek word for substance is *ouzia. And then the Latin
version for such substance was *substantia. And the person
itself *perzouna, which the Greek then eventually chose to
be *Houpostasis So as Tertullian who once said, *tres
persona, una substantia, meaning thereby, one substance and
three persons. That definition, really, is how we see it
today. That we say of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit in
their relationship to the Father is of one substance, that
there is one God and not three Gods, but only one person.
The Nicene Creed of 325 had an anathema. That means an
explicit rejection of Arius' position. I'd like to read it
to you. "And those who say, there was when he was not a time
when he was not, and before his generation he was not, and
he came to be from nothing, or those who pretend that the
son of God is of other *houpostasis, or substance or created
or alterable or mutable, the catholic and apostolic church
anathematizes." So here we have a clear statement being made
against what Arius claimed in quintessence and what his
followers also said.
The Arianism prevailed in Europe for a long, long time. In
589, we could say, it still had to be addressed in Toledo,
where the *filioque was spoken out as being that proper
explanation of how the Holy Spirit relates to God the Father
and Jesus Christ; namely, to bar a subordination of Jesus
Christ, that He is not the one from whom the Holy Spirit
flows.
With that anathema, Arius was excommunicated from the
Christian Church, and he shortly died afterwards. However,
his influence prevailed within the East for the whole rest
of the century. And it moved over into Europe and was
subsequently addressed at the Council of Toledo in 589. It
was a regional council, but it addressed, clearly, a quest
to subordinate Jesus once more under God and therefore said
clearly that the Holy Spirit flows, or proceeds, from the
Father and the Son. Thereby barring a subordinationism that
had come through the western Goth migration to Spain and
southern France.
Let's not forget, also, that the Nicene Creed addresses
Arius and other statements besides the term *homo ouzious.
As we know also it says, God of God, Light of Light, when it
comes to Jesus Christ. And it also said that he was
begotten, not made. That very fact, that Jesus was begotten,
is a concession that Jesus Christ does have a beginning.
However, it is not to be placed on the side of time because
it clearly says he was not made, though begotten.