Merkle introduces the chapter about the nominative case by telling a story concerning one of his students whose mother-in-law is a Witnesses of Jehovah. The student apparently posed a question to Merkle as to whether John 1:1 in the NWT is a valid handling of the underlying Greek--the NWT reads, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." Contrast this rendering with the KJV: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Seasoned students of Greek know that the nominative case has multiple functions: a word in the nominative can be the subject of a finite verb; there is the predicate nominative, the appositional nominative, the nominative absolute, and the nominative used for a vocative. When it comes to predicate nominatives such as we find in John 1:1, both the subject term and the predicate nominative occur in the nominative case and these constructions have either a stated or implied equative verb (page 11).
Predicate nominative constructions supply further data about the grammatical subject, but how does one distinguish the subject term from the predicate? Merkle explains how one might go about distinguishing these uses of the nominative case and he returns to John 1:1 in order to report how he answered the student.
The Greek text for John 1:1 states (Byzantine): Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
The articular subject of the sentence is ὁ λόγος while the predicate nominative is θεὸς, an anarthrous noun. Despite being anarthrous, Merkle maintains that it should not be rendered "a god" since this verse supposedly "refers to the full deity of Jesus as God," the one whom Trinitarianism understands to be the "Second Person" of the triune Godhead (page 12).
Merkle provides seven reasons why John 1:1 does not mean Jesus is "a god." Many of the reasons will sound familiar: John was a monotheist, so he could not have considered the Logos to be a god since the apostle believed in solely one God; John evidently alludes to the Genesis account where Almighty God creates the heavens and the earth. Therefore, Jesus qua the Logos must also be the Creator since John is effecting a parallelism between his Gospel and Genesis 1.
The book appeals to "Colwell's Canon" and Daniel Wallace's grammar, both of which purportedly account for the anarthrous noun without sacrificing Christ's "full deity." Wallace asserts that the type of predicate nominative that appears in John 1:1c is "rarely indefinite." He famously reckons that the noun is qualitative. See Merkle, page 12.
Finally, Merkle mentions places in the NWT where anarthrous uses of θεὸς appear, yet they are translated "God" rather than "a god." See John 1:6; 1:12-13; 1:18. He concludes the chapter by another reference to John 20:28, Daniel Wallace, and the Nicene Creed. However, despite the seemingly plausible case made for translating John 1:1c with "God," the fact remains that "a god" is not an impossible rendering and there are reasons besides theological ones why the NWT treats θεὸς differently elsewhere. Moreover, there are good grammatical reasons why NWT says the Word was "a god."
M.J. Harris writes that "a god" at John 1:1c is grammatically admissible but theologically inadmissible. I feel that some of this resistance comes from a failure to understand what Witnesses mean by "a god" but another reason for not accepting "a god" is adherence to the Trinity doctrine. NWT is not wrong; "a god" is a possible translation even if most don't like it. On the other hand, construing θεὸς as a qualitative noun is suspect at best.
44 comments:
Does it really help the trinitarian case to make "Theos" as applied to logos qualitative?
Here's what Benjamin Merkle writes about the importance of the qualitative semantic:
Thus John 1:1 “is very carefully constructed to refer to the personal
distinctness yet the essential oneness of the Word with God.”4 The Word
(Jesus) shares all the attributes of God (the Father) but is a distinct person. Thus the Greek use of the predicate nominative is qualitative: Jesus
possesses the essence of the Father but is not identified as the Father.
Wallace (269) summarizes: “The construction the evangelist chose to
express this idea was the most concise way he could have stated that the
Word was God and yet was distinct from the Father.”
They believe that John warded off modalism and tritheism but instead affirmed a teaching consonant with Trinitarianism.
Here's another quote from the evidenceunseen site:
Third, John most likely wrote it this way to show the diversity in the Godhead. He wanted to be clear that Jesus was God (in nature), but he was a separate person from God (in person). This grammatical construction brilliantly shows the unity of God (Jesus is God), while also preserving the diversity of God (Jesus is not the Father). Carson notes, “The effect of ordering the words this way is to emphasize ‘God’, as if John were saying, ‘and the word was God!’ In fact, if John had included the article, he would have been saying something quite untrue. He would have been so identifying the Word with God that no divine being could exist apart from the Word.”
The thing is the God that he(the logos) is with is a God in his own right so if he (the logos) is not a God then the claim that he is as divine as the God he is with is an unfounded assertion. It's circular reasoning.
I don't know if this helps, but for Trinitarians, "God" usually is not a person but the divine nature itself and the three persons are thought to be somehow identical to the divine nature or they share in the nature.
So, the claim is that the Logos is the same God as the Father, however, he's not the same person but has the same essence as the Father. I guess they would say the Father is fully God insofar as he is/shares in the divine nature. Yet they would insist that the Son is God insofar as he is/shares in the divine nature and the same for the holy spirit. Maybe that is circular.
Illogical ,if he was numerically identical to the God he was with then he would be a God because everything that is true of the God that he is numerically identical too must also be true of him. The verse does not say he was with the Father it says he was with the God.if the God in question is numerically identical to the Father then logically the he is numerically identical to the Father.If John is the same doctor as James then John is the same person as James because for the statement to be true everything that is true of the doctor in question must also be true of both John and James. So John and James would logically merely be different names for the same person
Remember from our past discussions of this issue that Trinitarians are a little slippery about numerical identity. So, they deny that the Son is numerically identical with the Father: he is essentially identical (they claim) with the Father but personally distinct from him. Even the way they talk about the relationship of the persons to the "Godhead" is slippery or hedged.
Some illustrate the Trinity by asking us to imagine three men (humans) named Peter, John, James; these men are distinct from one another in terms of their personhood but they're all human, so they're essentially the same as the reasoning goes. However, while this supposedly illustrates the Trinity, one difference is that the Trinity is allegedly three persons but one being. But the illustration supposedly demonstrates that the three divine persons are all divine just like three men are all human but the persons are also distinct like Peter, James, and John. Catholicism even posit three distinct relations for each person: the Father is unbegotten, the Son is begotten, and the holy spirit is spirated. Hence, no one person is the other one.
There is no slipping out of basic logic. If you are claiming that the son is the same God as the Father then logically you are necessarily claiming that he is a God and also that everything that is true of this God is also true of him. so then they can hold on to logic or they can hold on to their self-contradictory claims but not both.
Again, I'm not a Trinitarian, but I try to understand their claims. I have seen some theologians use the language "a god" for the Son and they explicitly make the claim that Jesus (the Logos personified) is the same God as the Father. However, they also maintain that the Logos is a distinct person; thus, everything that is true of the Father is not true of the Son, they would contend.
Maybe their claim is:
1) The Son is the same God as the Father
2) The Son is not the same person as the Father
3) Therefore, what is true of the Father is not necessarily true of the Son
John 1:6; 1:12-13; 1:18 - are very misleading a a sly tactic. NONE of these match John 1:1 as an anarthrous nominative before the verb.
1:6 is a prepositional phrase
1:12 & 1:13 are both genitive constructions and generally understood as definite
both these are established by Dana & Mantey + Wallace himself
1:18 is likely for emphasis - see a private email reply from lesriv spencer below
(note: he is not an expert on the subject)
John 1.18 shows theon' after discussing the Word throughout in the previous verses. The switch
to theon' is brought forward by placing the noun first in the phrase. It appears to be
intentional. By doing so the Author was seemingly shifting the attention back to God (cf 1.1).
It is definitely emphatical to place theon' in the beginning of the statement.
Now, theon' appears in the accusative case. And the accusative case is less demanding of
the article than the nominative is. What I mean by that is that theon' does not require the article
to be definite. "God" in the verse is followed by "no one," also emphatical. In this case,
theon' is just as 'definite as the arthrous theos in Jn 1.1 in the nominative which does require
the article to signal its definiteness. Furthermore, theon' being made prominent by its location
in the text followed by "no one has seen at any time" focuses attention on the nature of God,
which points to the fact that Jesus, seen by humans, was/is the one able to explain the Father.
Also, the rest of v. 18 makes clear that theon' is definite in meaning. As I noted in my Jn 1.1
article, English idiom demands the article for "[the] only begotten god", but not necessary in Greek.
By the way, some manuscripts do include the article in "monogenes' theos' = "the only begotten god."
Most translators follow this model regardless whether the article appears or not in some Greek Texts.
For Catholics:
1) The Father is unbegotten
2) The Son is begotten
3) Ergo, the Father is not the Son
I'm familiar with trinitarian claims. But as I've demonstrated the claims are self-contradictory and on that basis alone ought to be rejected when we add the fact that the scriptures make it clear that the only God is supreme and thus has no equals and is entitled to Exclusive devotion. The absurdity of doctrine is even further compounded.
Anonymous, your remarks show the complexity of translating anarthrous constructions with the article in English or not and you're right that they're not exactly the same as John 1:1c. It also hit me that Merkle and scholars like him are being inconsistent by appealing to Colwell's Canon (Rule) but then arguing for a qualitative semantic for John 1:1c. I don't think Colwell helps their case when it comes to the qualitative semantic.
its interesting how the son can be begotten yet never had a beginning - as the term even in Greek implies some sort of beginning
I reject the doctrine because it seems incoherent to me and contradictory and unscriptural. However, it's hard convincing Trinitarians of those facts although some do eventually see the light. I would like to see what feedback you get from Trinitarians, but I've found they do not accept that the Father and Son have absolutely all things in common. Even John Calvin did not believe that. Like Merkle, they want to claim that Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are three in one sense but one in another sense. So they see no explicit contradiction with the Trinity; at least, most of them do not find the doctrine contradictory or they attempt to state it in such a way that any explicit contradiction is avoided.
I agree with what you're pointing out about the Son's begettal. They try to accomplish this feat by placing the Son of God completely outside of time; there are a number of metaphysical assumptions built into the doctrine. Sometimes it involves the redefinition of terms.
Iv seen that argument - However it must be questioned, When does the Hebrew or Greek terms mean "outside of time"? the same terms are used of things that are not "everlasting"
What trinitarians fail to realise is eternity can extend in both directions or start from a point in time
Jesus for example when resurrected would never die again, like Humans - Humans are said to live into the age [of the age] but did we exist "outside of time" nope, not according to Genesis
similar arguments with "was" and "beginning" - but John would have to use a past tense verb no matter what because the "beginning" is an event that has ended (per Greek idiom)
and John doesn't nesacarily have to talk about "creating" as this clearly occurs after Jesus' creation.
the other arguments Iv hashed out before such as in Col 1:15 the "First-created" argument which is rubbish.
Iv also seen this recently:
was the Son born (tikto), in other words begotten (gennao), or was he created by the Father (ktizo, poio)? The NT always uses the first two for the Son orign from the Father, and never the latter two. And vice versa: the NT always uses the last two in relation of the creation of the creatures, never the first two. Don't you think that this has a theological significance and indicates that there is a substantive-qualitative difference between the two?
this same individual try's to clash Rom 8:29 & Col 1:16
(not exact but similar) Ones used of an thing and one of a living person tho I think one is also used of both.
"Merkle and scholars like him are being inconsistent by appealing to Colwell's Canon (Rule) but then arguing for a qualitative semantic for John 1:1c" - not only that the rule only PERMITS the noun to be permit, but fails to prove it + a rule with 15 exceptions in the NT is no rule at all. see John 15:1
This is what I say about the divine nature but separate people. We men share the same nature we are men. However we are different person, if we could all never die the oldest of us would still most likely have more expirence in living.
Yet we are all men. Or go a little further and bring in women and we are all human, but that doesn't make us one. There was a time that the father was alone. He brought forth the son almost like a mother brings forth a child. So what is the nature of the father? He is the class of God a God, thruout the bible he is always saying to humans to stop comparing other Gods to him. He alone is God. But to say other Gods means there are a class of Gods, I guess for lack of better meaning Gods are those who are worshipped by humans. But there is only one living and true God. Those given worship to by humans are not gods at all. My thoughts are Jesus is "a god" is not wrong, but can be debated gramatically by most scholars as incorrect, really not preferred by their own bias.
The nature of men is not numerically identical to any particular instantiation of human nature after all men come and go human nature remains. If there is a class of persons who equally share a Trinitarian style divine nature then none of them could likewise be considered numerically identical to this nature they share indeed if personhood is not essential to this divine nature the "persons" could disappear and the nature would continue.
You all have made some interesting comments. My time is limited for the next few days and I work on Merkle posts daily until I get through the chapters I want to discuss, but the Trinitarian moves to counter some of these arguments are either to deny numerical identity or they don't apply numerical identical to the triune Godhead.
They're also defining "eternal" as timeless, but I agree that the Hebrew and Greek terms don't seem to connote or denote timelessness. Furthermore, the eternal generation doctrine appears to be contradictory.
The Nicene Creed states that the Son of God was begotten, not created. And they interpret the begettal as eternal or timeless.
Most Trinitarians reject the idea that there is no absolute Identity, likely because they realise that such a position renders a conclusive identification of God impossible. If the trinity itself has no absolute Identity who or what is the supreme divinity spoken of in scripture. So as tends to be the case trinitarian attempts to resolve the philosophical tensions in their doctrine comes at the cost of even more intractable philosophical tensions
"Wallace asserts that the type of predicate nominative that appears in John 1:1c is 'rarely indefinite.'"
The irony with that false assertion is that even in the Netbible we find not one, not two, but *every* noun in GJohn that is comparable to John 1:1c [*] is rendered into English with the indefinite article. Will Wallace assert that all those verses are mistranslated in the Netbible?
For a noun to be comparable to QEOS at John 1:1c, it must be:
a. preverbal
b. anarthrous
c. count
d. not arguably definite
e. describing a person
All such nouns in GJohn are rendered with the indefinite article by translators.
"John was a monotheist, so he could not have considered the Logos to be a god since the apostle believed in solely one God" - if John only believed in one God why did he use the plural form?
From Sean,
I've edited the first sentence for him. Blogger doesn't let me change what others have written. At least, I don't know how to change the comments of others.
Sean wrote:
Hi Edgar,
What I'd like to know is why no one in academia is calling Wallace out on the misinformation he is spreading, whether wittingly or unwittingly, apparently for theological reasons? I mean, it's not like it's hard to see that his words aren't consistent with standard translation practice respecting preverbal anarthrous count nouns that aren't definite.
To quote Batman: It is not what you say that defines you, but what you do.
Trinitarians will *say* that for a noun to be indefinite it should be placed after the verb, but what they *do* is render EVERY SINGLE COMPARABLE NOUN in GJohn with the indefinite article. They are inconsistent 100% of the time in translating John 1:1c, because it is there and only there that they opt to omit the indefinite article in translation with respect to comparable nouns in GJohn.
~Sean
Hi Sean and others,
I cannot definitively say why nobody corrects Wallace but I imagine bias has something to do with it. If you have a chance, please go back and read Wallace: he gives examples of PNs that he thinks are definite, indefinite or qualitative. He thinks John 1:49 is definite and Wallace mentions John 3:29 as well under that classification.
Wallace lists John 10:33 under the qualitative examples for the PN constructions.
He has John 6:70 listed under indefinite PNS, but since Wallace consider devil to be a monadic noun, he renders it "the devil." John 4:19 is considered to be indefinite.
Maybe you've also read this paper: https://brill.com/view/journals/hbth/44/2/article-p141_2.xml?language=en
Hi Edgar,
I may have seen that Brill paper, but I'll definitely read or re-read it to be sure. I may end up corresponding with the writer, since he provides his email address.
Unexpectedly, I think that one of the problems with Wallace's view is that it's founded on an incomplete understanding of how *English* works. He seems to assume that if QEOS is "qualitative" at John 1:1c, then it shouldn't be rendered into English with the indefinite article. That's just demonstrably wrong. Indefinite nouns in English are used in primarily two ways, to categorize and to describe, the latter of which is just a more accurate way of saying "qualitatively."
Not only are indefinite nouns used "qualitatively" in English, but they can be used when the descriptive sense is highly emphasized. In other words, indefinite nouns in English can not only be "qualitative" but *emphatically* "qualitative." To put it another way, indefinite nouns in English can be used, to paraphrase how Harner put it, when the qualitative force is more important than whether the noun is definite or indefinite.
I provide an example of how this is so, here:
https://kazlandblog.wordpress.com/2023/03/28/and-the-word-was-god-qualitatively-part-5/
~Sean
Hi Sean,
Very good points. Looking back at Wallace's GGBB on page 270, I see an example of what you point out. Wallace there criticizes the KJV for translating pneuma ho theos, "God is a spirit" since he thinks pneuma is qualitative: he explicitly writes that the KJV "incorrectly" renders the Greek this way.
Mark 15:39 likewise comes to mind; even if it's qualitative, why can't it be rendered "a Son of God" or "a son of God"?
Thanks for the link: I will read what you've written.
Hi Edgar,
You said:
"Mark 15:39 likewise comes to mind; even if it's qualitative, why can't it be rendered 'a Son of God' or 'a son of God'?"
Indeed! I would say that it not only *could* be rendered that way, but considering the speaker in the narrative (a Roman soldier), it seems to me that that's almost certainly what he *did* mean.
Speaking of this specific text, I think Harner's argument about it is just beyond absurd. Do you remember what he says about it? Toward the end of his "exegesis," he suggested that maybe a "qualitative" noun was used to allow the inference of a definite "Son" on the Jewish side, and an indefinite "Son" on the Roman side, *or maybe even both*! What? That dripped off the pen of an academic? Can't people see that he was engaging in wild partisan speculations in an attempt to preserve his "qualitative" theory while also recognizing the historical considerations that impact proper interpretation?
Honestly, I've been contemplating Harner for 20 years, and it's disappointing to see so many swayed by his unconvincing and rather biased paper. The man was a partisan apologist trying to play in a linguist's sandbox, and he couldn't find the scoop.
As for John 4:24, if the correct rendering is "God is spirit," then "spirit" is functioning as a mass noun there, not a count noun. If "spirit" does have a mass sense there, then using this text to illustrate how John 1:1c might be understood involves a category error. On the other hand, if yesteryear's translators were right, most if not all of whom rendered the clause "God is a spirit," then that would illustrate quite nicely how a qualitative count noun should be rendered into English. There's no question that "spirit" is qualitative there, with or without the article. The question is, is it count or mass? If count, then the KJV (and the NWT) got it right. If mass, then it has no bearing on John 1:1c at all.
~Sean
The son is considered only begotten, that means the father was not and also the holy spirit is not. So the father and the holy spirit are beyond begotten or the reason for the son to be begotten. Doesn't seem co-equal to me no matter how trinitarians view it. Begotten has the idea of a start whereas the father does not have a start.
Hi Sean,
Thanks for reminding me about Harner's remarks concerning Mark 15:39. I've got his article, have read it many times, but also review it. Some parts of my memory are starting to fade. But it makes sense that the Roman soldier would have intended to say "a Son/son of God." And it is amazing how much deference has been paid to Harner's article: it's got to be one of the most quoted and the article is usually read uncritically.
I've read plenty of articles about John 1:1 and I'm fairly certain that hardly any of them (to put it lightly) even refer to the mass-count distinction. Besides Hartley, who does?
I ran a quick search on Wallace's GGBB--no mention of mass nouns in his book.
Philip, Trinitarians have to do all kinds of fancy footwork with the terms "Son" and "begotten" or generation. They say the Father is unbegotten, the Son is begotten and the Holy Spirit is spirated but then they add "eternal" to the begettal and spiration. As I mentioned before, by "eternal," they mean timeless. So that means the Son's begettal never began nor will it ever end.
While not all Trinitarians believe in the eternal generation, the Council of Nicaea affirmed it clearly.
Philip, here's a quote I've posted before:
"Hence Gregory Nazianzen like Athanasius insisted that they [the terms 'Father' and 'Son'] must be treated as referring imagelessly, that is in a diaphanous or 'see through' way, to the Father and the Son without the intrusion of creaturely forms or sensual images into God. Thus we may not think of God as having gender nor think of the Father as begetting the Son or the Son as begotten after the analogy of generation or giving birth with which we are familiar among creaturely beings."
Quote taken from Thomas F. Torrance, The Christian Doctrine of God: One Being, Three Persons (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1996), 158.
See Nazianzen's Orationes 29.16; 31.7, 31ff.
To clarify, when I mentioned the mass-count distinction, I was thinking of scholarly works. I found some places on the Inet where the mass-count distinction is brought into the John 1:1c discussion but I haven't noticed it much in books or journal articles/theses.
Hi Edgar,
You said:
"To clarify, when I mentioned the mass-count distinction, I was thinking of scholarly works. I found some places on the Inet where the mass-count distinction is brought into the John 1:1c discussion but I haven't noticed it much in books or journal articles/theses."
Isn't that bizarre? One of the most important criteria for determining proper translation is noun classification. So, for example, mass nouns don't take the indefinite article in English, so they can't be used to determine how a count noun should be rendered in English because count nouns can and do take the article. Proper names are typically definite, and may be said to have a default definiteness unless context suggests otherwise. This is because there are extremely limited situations in which someone might say something like, "There's a Sean Kasabuske standing by the soda machine." Thus, one shouldn't expect QEOS to be rendered with the indefinite article when it's functioning as a proper name, and that's how it normally functions in the NT.
I think we have to give a lot of credit to our informed JW brothers, who brought the count/mass distinction into view, thus bringing attention to the importance of noun classification.
You've probably seen it before, but I explain how the charge that the WTS is inconsistent in translation practice because they use the indefinite article at John 1:1c is mistaken (see the link below). Ironically, after seriously considering that charge, I realized that it is not JWs, but Trinitarians who are inconsistent, because John 1:1c is the only text in GJohn in which we find an anarthrous preverbal count noun that is not definite and is used to describe a person in which the noun is NOT rendered into English with indefinite article.
https://kazlandblog.wordpress.com/2021/08/23/was-the-wts-inconsistent-in-translating-qeos/
Hi Sean,
I appreciate the work that you and other Witnesses have done on this issue. Yeah, I first connected mass & count nouns with John 1:1 after reading what fellow JWs had written: the scholarly world mainly ignored this distinction, which is integral to understanding John 1:1.
As you know from past discussions, Richard Young tries to account for John 1:1 by appealing to monadic nouns, and I checked out an old B-Greek thread where someone wanted to argue that theos is not a count noun although I have not read their comments thoroughly to see why they deny it, but it might be for the same reason that Young does.
It's funny that people want to have things two or three different ways: it's definite, no, the noun is qualitative. Hold up! It's monadic. Anything but indefinite.
Hi Sean,
I appreciate the work that you and other Witnesses have done on this issue. Yeah, I first connected mass & count nouns with John 1:1 after reading what fellow JWs had written: the scholarly world mainly ignored this distinction, which is integral to understanding John 1:1.
As you know from past discussions, Richard Young tries to account for John 1:1 by appealing to monadic nouns, and I checked out an old B-Greek thread where someone wanted to argue that theos is not a count noun although I have not read their comments thoroughly to see why they deny it, but it might be for the same reason that Young does.
It's funny that people want to have things two or three different ways: it's definite, no, the noun is qualitative. Hold up! It's monadic. Anything but indefinite.
That point about how anarthrous preverbal PNs are handled in GJohn is also compelling to me.
On the council of Nicea is there any written words by any of them saying to the effect that they received a revelation by holy spirit when concluding that God is a trinity? I have not found any. Maybe I missed something. thanks again Edgar
Philip
Hi Edgar,
I had said:
"I think we have to give a lot of credit to our informed JW brothers, who brought the count/mass distinction into view, thus bringing attention to the importance of noun classification."
In case it wasn't clear, I was using the editorial "we"; I include you as one of the people whose help in understanding the issues has been invaluable to me.
~Sean
Hi Philip,
People often think that the Nicene Council clearly affirmed the Trinity. While I think they believed in it, the creed itself stops short of affirming the Holy Spirit's (holy spirit's) "deity." But we have the minutes from that council, and I don't remember any statement to that effect.
Hi Sean: I benefited immensely from your research, and I consider myself to be standing upon the shoulders of spiritual giants, who came before me.
Hi Edgar,
I think that Acts 15:28 which says in part. "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit... to lay upon you no greater burden."-ASV sets a precedent. The Nicene Council did not say it, and the other Council because they did not have the holy spirit for any of their decrees or at least they felt it unnecessary to say it was by holy spirit. To me there is no evidence that it was by holy spirit as if they received a revelation. So all the decrees that follow it was not proveable by holy spirit and could be by a deceptive spirit.
Hi Philip, I think there were seven major councils during the post-apostolic era. I would have to go back and review the minutes of each council to confirm this point but it certainly seems that Nicaea and the Council of 381 (Niceno-Constantinopolitan) did not say that the Holy Spirit guided their decision. However, I also know that the early church and its later acolytes felt that the Holy Spirit guided their decisions, which is not the same as that being the case de facto. Martin Luther famously proclaimed that councils can err: the Catholic church believes otherwise, but most importantly, what do the scriptures indicate?
I think it was the Council of Nicaea which just affirmed belief in the Holy Spirit: it did not explicitly claim to be guided by the Spirit or directly state that the Spirit is God.
Here's the Nicene Creed:
I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets.
I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.
Post a Comment