tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6805190.post195713812150382566..comments2024-03-01T07:35:49.740-08:00Comments on Come Reason's Apologetics Notes: Eliminating Competing Concepts of GodLenny Espositohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04064209669748618955noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6805190.post-75337263178623689142015-07-23T12:13:21.679-07:002015-07-23T12:13:21.679-07:00Sorry for the typo at the end: "should consid...Sorry for the typo at the end: "should consider this CREED a good, or the best statement of essential Christian beliefs."Dalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04601885187182140821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6805190.post-24657814203367245522015-07-23T08:02:27.686-07:002015-07-23T08:02:27.686-07:00"The Nicene Creed gets the concept of God rig..."The Nicene Creed gets the concept of God right in its very first sentence"<br /><br />Yes, I agree. The one God is the Father. But then later it tells us that Jesus is "true God from true God" - basically, that he eternally emanates somehow from the ousia of the Father, who's said to be the one God at the start. Now, Lenny, how many gods have been mentioned? It would seem two, one mysteriously from the other. And yes, they share an "ousia" - but so what? Is that supposed to make them one God? On the old Platonic philosophy, you and I share an ousia / essence - humanity. But we're not one man. Sure, we're both human. And the point of that council seems just to have been to emphasize the qualitative similarity of Jesus and God. (http://trinities.org/blog/podcast-episode-31-william-hasker-on-the-arian-controversy/)<br /><br />Some evangelicals, such as this accomplished scholar (http://trinities.org/blog/moses-stuart-on-nicea/) or William Lane Craig outright reject the eternal generation doctrine that this creed asserts, as lacking biblical warrant, and as implying the inferiority of the Son. (On that doctrine, the Son exists because of the Father, so is dependent, not a se.)<br /><br />So I would just say - yes, this is a traditional catholic authority, but let's be clear about what the 325 creed is and isn't saying. It was saying that Jesus was divine and can be called "true God." But it's unclear how this is monotheism, when there's another "true God" who is the origin somehow of Jesus. In fact, its new language introduces new problems, and its meaning (specifically, how to take "homoousios" here) has been a matter of dispute ever since. So this is not the place to go for a definitive statement on Christian monotheism. It is by no means clear that Protestants should consider this great a good, or the best statement of essential Christian beliefs. It is arguably too controversial to serve that purpose. Dalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04601885187182140821noreply@blogger.com