I’m a Mormon and I Believe the Nicene Creed

I truly admire those Church Fathers who over hundreds of years helped define the theory of the Trinity. And I don’t say this sarcastically or tongue in cheek. With all due respect, I truly marvel at their ability to make sense of what they had.

On the one hand, they stuck fiercely to their idea of a monotheistic religion (believing in one God). But on the other hand, they were keenly aware of the Bible referring to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, all considered godly and divine. So how can we articulate the nature of the Godhead without lowering their godly natures, but while still preserving monotheism? How in the world can we possibly get these two ideas to fit together in harmony?

I’d have to say that if I were given the same task as the Church Fathers, I don’t think I could have done it. I would have said it’s impossible. Let me resign my post and I’ll become a layman again.

But through the centuries, they never gave up. And council after council, creed after creed, they finally arrived at the solution—the theory of the Trinity. God is three persons, staying true to the Bible, but only one being, preserving monotheism. Absolutely brilliant!

And while I may not agree with every aspect of the theory of the Trinity that the Church Fathers articulated, I believe every word of the first major statement on Trinitarian belief—the Nicene Creed.

The Nicene Creed is a text that Mormon Christians often cite to show how historical Christianity got off track. They often note the fact that the creed uses philosophical language rather than biblical language to describe the Godhead. And really, who can blame them for not liking the creed? This is the text that has been aggressively used to antagonize Mormons and exclude them from the rest of Christianity for the past 200 years.

And while the part about the philosophical language is a legitimate point, I for one love the Nicene Creed. It’s an inspired work of genius really! I believe it and hope that my Mormon Christian friends would too.

The Nicene Creed

So what is it? Well, the original Nicene Creed was written at the Council of Nicaea in the year 325, but the creed only stirred up more controversy. A second church council was called together in 381 in Constantinople, and the document that resulted from this second is officially known as the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, but because of its similarity to the creed from 325 (and because of its incredibly long and hard-to-pronounce name) it’s commonly called the Nicene Creed. (I know it’s confusing that we have two Nicene Creeds, but you can be comforted knowing that 99% of the time people refer to the Nicene Creed,^[i] they’re talking about the second one from 381.)

With the stamp of approval from the Roman emperor, it became the official orthodox view and ever since has been used as a litmus test to determine who is a “true” Christian. There are multiple translations of the document, but here is one rendering:^[ii]

Wait a second, how can a Mormon believe the Nicene Creed? Well, it’s quite simple actually. Everything in the creed harmonizes with the Mormon Framework. If you don’t believe me, take another look. There’s no reason why Mormon Christians should not embrace the Nicene Creed as an inspired document—it articulates the Godhead right in line with the Mormon perspective.

First, there’s God the Father, the Almighty who made all things. Then there’s Jesus, the Son of God who died on the cross, rose again, ascended to heaven, and will return in glory. The Holy Spirit is sent by the Father and speaks to prophets in one catholic (universal) and apostolic church (a church in harmony with the original apostles). We also believe in baptism, the remission of sins, the resurrection, and immortality. Where’s the problem?

Homoousios

Perhaps the main issue that Mormon Christians might raise is the language regarding Jesus—that he is “of one substance with the Father.” But what does this really mean? Well, it’s not crystal clear, whether in English or even in the original Greek. The Greek word meaning “of one substance” is “homoousios,”^[iii] which can also be interpreted to mean one essence, nature, or being. Each of these English words also has a range of meanings, so let’s try to articulate this in a different way. The Nicene Fathers could be saying that the Father and Son are “homoousios” in the same way that you are 1) “homoousios” with only yourself (of one being and existence), 2) “homoousios” with your mother or father (of the same essence because one originates from the other), or 3) “homoousios” with any other human being (of the same nature or species).[iv]

Naturally, most Classical Christians today interpret “homoousios” closest to the first sense above, that is, the Son and the Father are two persons of the very same being. With this interpretation, then no, this idea isn’t suitable with the Mormon view of the three separate beings of the Godhead. But what did the Nicene Fathers actually intend when they said that the Son is “homoousios” with the Father? Let’s investigate.

The word “homoousios” likely originated with the Gnostics, a group of heretical Christian sects popular in the 2^nd century. They used the word to talk about beings who they believed emanated from God, such as Jesus and the Holy Spirit, but including as many as 30 different emanations.^[v] These beings were said to be “homoousios” with God. The Gnostics used the term not to indicate a being’s existence as itself, but more aligned with the second meaning above—one being originating from another.

So could the Nicene Fathers have meant “homoousios” in this way? It is certainly plausible. But rather than look at the use of the word two centuries prior to the Council of Nicaea, we will get a more precise answer if we look at the context of the 4^th century debates on the nature of God. The creeds of both 325 and 381 were answering the claims of Arianism—that Jesus is of a lesser nature than the Father, but of a higher nature than humans. And in direct response to such a doctrine that they found revolting, they unitedly affirmed that Jesus is “homoousios” with the Father. With this background, we can reasonably conclude that what the Nicene Fathers most probably meant by the word “homoousios” is closest to the third definition above. In countering Arius, they upheld the doctrine that Jesus is of the same nature as the Father.^[vi]

Regardless of what the Nicene Fathers originally meant by “homoousios,” people later interpreted it to mean one being and existence, and it’s only in this sense—the least likely intended meaning—that the Nicene Creed would run contrary to the Mormon view. On the other hand, if the Nicene Fathers actually meant that the Father and Son are of the same essence as one originating from the other, or of the same nature and species—the second or third definitions above—either way is in perfect harmony with the Mormon conception of Godhead.

Mormon Christians stand with those of Classical traditions in rejecting Arianism and affirming that Jesus is of the same nature as the Father and is begotten of the Father. But that’s not all. Mormon Christians also affirm that we all have the same nature as the Father and we were all spiritually begotten of him. We are all of one common nature—the nature of God!

As it turns out, Mormons Christians can read the Nicene Creed and believe it too. And if we are still set on using it as a litmus test to know who’s Christian,^[vii] then as irony would have it, the Mormon theory of Godhead is the most Christian of all.

---

[i] The 99% statistic is not independently verified, but as with so many statistics, was made up on the spot.

[ii] See http://www.earlychurchtexts.com/public/nicene_creed.htm.

[iii] The actual Greek word used in the Nicene Creed is “homoousion,” the accusative masculine singular form of “homoousios.” Strictly speaking, “homoousion” is translated from “of one substance,” and the word “with” is implied. Most English translations appropriately include the word “with,” or sometimes “as,” so that the phrase makes sense in English. In the original Greek, this phrase includes only the words “homoousion” followed by “the Father.”

[iv] Certainly there could be other interpretations, but these three interpretations are given because the first is the Classical Christian view, the second is the original usage of the word, and the third is the interpretation that makes sense in countering Arian claims.

[v] Valentinianism believed in 30 total beings, all emanations of God.

[vi] Do we have any record from those who attended the Council of Nicaea as to what is meant by “homoousios?” We sure do! In a letter, Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, who was present at the original council in 325, seeks to explain why he deserted the Arian stance he once espoused in favor of endorsing the creed. Writing to his own church at Caesarea, he affirms: “When they formulated this statement, I did not let it pass without examination in what sense they said ‘of the substance of the Father’ and ‘consubstantial with the Father’…it was declared that they used the phrase ‘of the substance’ to indicate his being of the Father, but not as if he were a part of the Father. So I agreed to subscribe to this in the sense of the pious teaching which declares that the Son is of the Father, but not as being a part of his essence” (see Edward Rochie Hardy’s Christology of the Later Fathers, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006, p. 338; emphasis added). Eusebius’ letter is unfortunately not the most clearly written, but one possible interpretation of what he says rules out “homoousios” to mean of one being and existence (interpretation #1 above). I for one am not of the opinion that he is necessarily ruling out option #1. While it is not abundantly clear what he is saying, I understand him to be saying that the Son is not one part of the Father as an arm is one part of a body. This interpretation neither supports nor rules out any of the three options.

[vii] In my view, the Nicene Creed or any other creed should not be used as a litmus test to determine who is Christian. The biblical definition of a Christian—those who believe in, turn to, and remain true to the Lord—is the definition that we should use. Thus, despite the possibility of the Mormon theory of Godhead being closer to the original intention of the Nicene Fathers, I view those in Classical traditions to be just as Christian as Mormon Christians.