ROUGHLY EDITED COPY CONFESSIONS 1 CON1-Q018 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 the Apostles' and the Nicene Creed, the Holy Spirit is treated with few words compared to the number of words and phrases used to describe Christ. For example, the Nicene Creed does not confess the Holy Spirit as being of the same substance as the Father, as it does with Christ. Is the Holy Spirit, therefore, not somewhat underrepresented? >> DR. KLAUS DETLEV SHULTZ: Thank you very much for that question, David. I think you have a certain legitimate point made there in your question because if we look at the first edition of the Nicene Creed of 325, you see that there was only one statement made about the Holy Spirit, merely saying we believe or I believe in the Holy Spirit. In contrast, we have a long second article on Jesus Christ, as well as an anathema defying Arius' position at the end of that creed. So we ask ourselves: Is the Holy Spirit really underrepresented? I think from a historical perspective, the question has to be answered clearly that the three Cappadocians fought vehemently against making the Holy Spirit subordinate. That was after the Nicene Creed had been formulated at 325. So we can see, therein, that there was a quest to reinstate the Holy Spirit in the Trinity, just as much as it was also for Jesus Christ himself. The Holy Spirit is a person, but He's also God. He's of the same substance, but He's also distinctly a person who does something. These two points have to be kept in mind. And then in the years that ensued 325, we see that the Cappadocians clearly laid down the basis for a later formulation on the Holy Spirit in the third article of 381, the *Niceno Constantinopolitan creed as we have it today. And I'd like to quote that statement being made there as being the this: "And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, who has spoken through the Prophets." I can see in that statement no *homo ouzious, of course. And that's what you asked in your question. There is no *homo ouzious, of the same substance. We, perhaps, would like to see that in there, but that is not necessarily to be seen as a deficiency. Because as I look at these statements being made here in the creed on the Holy Spirit, I see that the Holy Spirit is also being made the Lord, the *curios, and the life giver. Now that demands that he is reinstated or placed in the relationship to God. In fact, he has to be made God in order to be someone who can give life. And to be named Lord, that, too, is something that demands worship and glorification. And that was given to Jesus Christ and God the Father alone. And now that worship and glorification is also extended to the Holy Spirit. And then finally, it makes this very important statement also, "Who proceeds from the Father." And then later on, the *filioque was added saying, "And proceeds also from the Son.� Thereby, I think there is no deficiency here in the creeds about the Holy Spirit. I think they�re made very clear that Jesus Christ has the status of being in the union with God the Father and the Son. Of the same substance is implied, though we perhaps are looking for that word explicitly.