Full Text for Confessions 1- Volume 14 - Theological Issues behind the Creeds (Video)

ROUGHLY EDITED COPY CONFESSIONS 1 CON1-Q014 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. * * * * >> NICK: What were some of the theological issues that shaped the creeds and had to be addressed by them? And while I�m at it, let me ask if the creeds are still useful for addressing issues within Christianity today. >> DR. KLAUS DETLEV SHULTZ: Thank you very much for that question, Nick. I'll have to ask you all to pay close attention to the facts that I'm trying to relate to you now. It's very important that we see that the creeds always address a situation, a theological situation, usually, a problem or dilemma they find themselves in. And in this case, the creeds all speak out very clearly on behalf of the Christianity that formulated them and for us today as well, since you ask in the second part of your question whether they still fulfill the same function as they do then. The Apostles' Creed itself addressed sectarian movements which we call Gnosticism. Gnosticism, and it is speculated here by scholars, already prevailed perhaps at the time of the Gospel of John when it was written. As you will see there in the Gospel of John, that it clearly affirms that Jesus Christ descended from heaven and became flesh in John 1:14. He became man. Now Gnosticism is known to deny that Jesus Christ himself became flesh. It also denies a crucifixion of Christ. It also denies that God is the creator. In other words, it wants to disassociate itself from creation and also then, finally, from our own resurrection of the body. So in this dichotomy between that what is eternal, transcendent, and what is God, and that what is creation, they wanted to distinguish between the two. And so the Apostles' Creed speaks clearly out against such attempts to divorce Jesus Christ's ministry from the earthly ministry that he performed through his cross, through his death, and through his resurrection. It also affirms clearly that God is the one who created the world. And then finally, also, the Apostles' Creed affirms that we, too, will one day resurrect, not just with our souls, but with our body as well. The Nicene Creed goes back to the fourth century. In fact, it goes back to the two councils of 325 and 381, the famous first Ecumenical Council of Nicaea and then the second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople. There was in 380 in Alexandria a bishop called *Arius. Now *Arius may be regarded as a heretic. However, it was very difficult to confront him because he quoted a number of scripture passages saying something about Jesus Christ that he deduced from these very passages. One of them comes from Proverbs 8:22. There it says, the Lord created me, in other words, the Son, as a beginning of his ways for his works. And then *Arius also quotes Colossians 1:15 saying that Jesus was the firstborn of creation. What did *Arius want to say with that? I think he picks up the constant discussion that prevailed in the early church; namely, wanting to relate Jesus Christ to God the father. And the question is: How different is Jesus Christ from the Father. And at the same time, how much is he in union with the father. *Arius, the presbyter, has said clearly that Jesus belongs to the part of creation; that he is not the same as the father in that sense. But rather that we should not give Him the tribute of eternity, as God the Father, but rather, give to Him the tribute of creation. So he would say in one famous statement that would relate to Jesus Christ as someone who had a beginning. There was a time when he was not, we hear from one of his statements. So Jesus Christ, in other words, was made subordinate to God the Father. What was the problem with this statement? I think the famous bishop of Alexandria, Athanasius, the champions of orthodoxy around the Council of Nicaea of 325, makes it very clear that if you deny Jesus Christ as God, you would deny the fact of our own salvation. So there is this dilemma that one has with *Arius that he would disclaim Jesus as our savior because He is not God. We all know, also, that Jesus Christ is truly human, but just as much as He was true human, He also has to be true God. So Athanasius saw therein a *saulteriological problem. If you do not claim Jesus as God, then the problem is that we will not be saved. So in 325, a council was called to Nicaea. It is in the East, close to the city of Constantinople in Asia Minor. And there, 318 bishops came together, and they were headed by the Emperor Constantine I, the famous emperor who introduced Christianity officially in 318. Constantine made it clear that a solution had to be reached at this council. Now there were a number of options that they could have chosen perhaps. They could have said Jesus is like the Father in substance. Now that is a very important statement, and that is finally what they came through with by saying Jesus Christ is of the same substance as the Father. Of course, there were others later on after 325 who were still quarrelling with that statement of the same substance and said, perhaps, one could rather say like God the Father. That means he would appear to be in his ministry on earth like God and father in most things ethically, morally. He would perform all those miracles like God the Father that shows that he was in a close relationship to God. *Arius, you might recall, once said you probably would have to compare Jesus Christ to the Prince, as one would relate to a king. And so here we have the idea, then, that like God the Father might not be enough. In fact, it wasn't regarded as enough, and it had to be said He is as God the Father in substance, *homoouzious is the Greek word for that. With that statement, that Jesus Christ is of the same substance as the Father, the Nicene Creed championed orthodoxy. It, however, did not conclude with that. As you know, there are a number of controversies ensued after that and one particular one also embraced the status of the Holy Spirit. There were those individuals who fought against making the Holy Spirit of the same status as Father and Son. They were called *Konoi� It means in Greek, translated into English, that those fought against the status of the Holy Spirit. And here we have three individuals. We call them the Cappadocians; Basil the Great, Gregory the Great, and Gregory of Nazius. And these three clearly enunciated the distinction between the three persons, but at the same time, also the unity within one God, so that the distinction clearly had to be made between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However, at the same time not denying their unity. For example, one of the fathers here clearly said that the Holy Spirit must be understood as that of proceeding from the Father, thereby saying that he has a beginning in God the Father Himself. However, it was also to be made sure that it not to be understood that the Holy Spirit is being placed on the same side of creation as all us human beings are. Just as Jesus Christ is understood to have a beginning in God the Father himself by generation or being begotten, as one says. We do not, however, place him on the side of creation either. The creeds, therefore, here both the Nicene and the Apostles' Creed express a deep concern for relating to the relationship of the three persons in one God. Although the term *Homoouzious was not chosen to express the relationship between the Holy Spirit and God the Father in Jesus Christ, we, however, have to say that in their formulation, as they posited it in the Nicene Creed, it is clearly to be understood that it does want to put the Holy Spirit on the same status as that of Jesus and God the father. We have to keep the events a little clearer here in terms of what happened to the Nicene Creed at the time of 325, and then later on at the second ecumenical council in 381 at Constantinople. As I have said, the Nicene Creed was formulated already in 325. However, in terms of relating to the Holy Spirit, the third person, the Nicene Creed of 325 came rather short and abrupt in its formulation saying just this one phrase, we believe in the Holy Spirit. And so, through the Cappadocians� quest to find a clear solution also for the status of the Holy Spirit, we finally leave and also come up with a third article formulated at the Council of Constantinople. And that creed, then, at Constantinople is today our creed as we find it in the Book of Concord. So not to confuse it with the creed of Nicaea, we have to say that the final edition or version that we accept today and subscribe to is the one of 381, the edited version of that of 325. The Athanasian Creed itself, also underwent a number of changes, and it reflects for us today, in the life of the church today, very importantly that we have to keep together the Trinity and the theology about Jesus Christ as a person. It reflects also the Council of Chalcedon in 451 and the previous one, the third ecumenical council of 431, because therein also, a number of statements about the person of Christ itself, the relationship of the two natures, had to be discussed. And so the Athanasian Creed picks up two centuries of theology that were struggled for and it finally came through a breakthrough in 451 at Chalcedon. At Chalcedon, the council affirmed the Nicene Creed, and it also formulated very important statements about the relationship of the two natures in the one person, Jesus Christ. We consider the Athanasian Creed, therefore, a very important summary of all those events that occurred before it. Finally, you ask also the question as to whether the creeds are still useful today in the life of the church. I must unequivocally say yes. It is very clear that the creeds do speak on behalf of us Christians today. They trim us, so to speak, from our excess statements that bring us and draw us away from the faith in the triune God and Jesus Christ and Holy Spirit. And so if we do have Christians amongst us who deny the trinity, who deny the person of Christ, we must clearly speak against them because on behalf of the creeds, we must preserve today the status of the triune God and also the person of Jesus Christ and the two natures and how they relate with one another. There are many denominations today who will perhaps speak of a historical conditioning of the creeds and also of the confessions of the 16th century. We have to be careful that we do not find any way of walking around those creeds and their claims theologically made. It is important, therefore, that we try whenever we have certain statements being made contrary to the creeds, that we use them and their theology to address them. Every pastor in the Missouri Synod today must know that he has taken an oath of allegiance to the ecumenical creeds thereby saying, in effect, that he is willing to perpetuate their theology today and bind himself to their theology as well. So he has taken the obligation to speak on their behalf whenever he preaches, through every act in his ministry, that they are clearly understood in the life of the church today.