So we do something a little bit different this evening again, and we look at the Nicene Creed together. It's a creed that has been recited for many centuries. It's often recited or has been recited together with the Apostles' Creed, which I spoke about a while ago. And I think as we look at this creed, it's fair to begin with a few thoughts on creeds in general, because whenever we actually recite a creed like this, we're being radically counter-cultural. We're putting a stake in the ground effectively, and we're saying that we believe in an absolute statement of truth that we've recited together, a statement of truth that's believed by the Universal Church. And as we said about the Apostles Creed, so we can say about this creed too, that if ever there's a time to believe a creed, to recite a creed, it's now, right? In a time where everything goes, where truth is relative, I think we believe we live in a world where skepticism reigns, skepticism about the relevance of reciting words from a document drafted many, many centuries ago. How could such words be relevant to us in this day and age? We live at the cutting edge of society, so what relevance can words like this have to us? And what we're saying is that in reciting the Creed is effectively that the truths that we've just spoken about belong to the corpus of Orthodox Christianity. In other words, anything aside from this boundary is heresy. I remember reading Gresham Machen's work on Christianity and liberalism, and he mentions that you may say you're a Christian while not holding to orthodox truth, but in actual fact, you're believing in an entirely different religion. So that's what's at stake here when we actually recite these words. So as we look at the creed, the fundamental question that the creed is answering is this. How does the Son relate to the Father and the Spirit? So the doctrine of the Trinity, and in particular, what is the relationship between the Son and the Father and the Spirit? The creed was drafted in the year AD 325. Theologians returned to it in the year 381 in the city of Constantinople, where another section on the Holy Spirit was added. And the creed arose out of the Nicene Council. which convened to primarily vote on the issue of Christ's divinity. And when we say vote, we don't mean that this was a doctrine that was created or invented by man. What we mean is that it was a matter of ratifying something that already existed theologically within the Church, but that was being challenged in those days by the Arians. So the council was called by Emperor Constantine. There was a lot of division within the church. And that division was largely around the nature of Christ and his relation to the Father and the Spirit. And so the motivation for calling the council, I think it's fair to say that the motivation was largely political more than theological on Constantine's part, because the division was rife within the church, and that was affecting the stability of the empire. The agenda of the council actually focused on a number of issues beyond the divinity of Christ and the Trinity, among which are the nature of the sacraments, the dates of Easter, interestingly. The council decreed that Easter should be observed on the first Sunday following the full moon after the first equinox. And that's exactly the timing that we follow to this day. So we owe a lot, in a sense, to the outcome of that council. But overall, the central issue was Arianism. And we've heard that word before. Of course, the two parties involved here were Arius and Athanasius. Arius was from modern-day Libya, which in this day and age is mostly Muslim, but in the first few centuries was actually largely Christian. And we know that, looking back in history, the outcome of that council was that Arius was determined to be a heretic, and he was banished from the church. Arius said that even though Christ was a divine-like figure, he was not divine as the Father was. So one of the mantras of Arianism was that there was a time when the Savior or the Son was not. So in other words, Jesus was a supreme creation of God the Father, but he was not on the same level as God. He was still a created being. That was the fundamental premise. So what does that sound like? It sounds a bit familiar, right, to the modern-day Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses. The issue revolved around a single word, and you may have heard this pair of words before. homoousios in Greek or homoiousios, these two words. And I mentioned them in particular because they revolve around a single letter, the letter I, which in Greek is iota. So that's where we get the saying, not an iota difference. Well, of course, there's a world of difference between these two words. It's funny to think that the whole world was shaken by these two words, a single letter. But the world of difference is that on the one hand, one was saying Jesus was like God, homoousios, and the other was saying he was God, homoousios. In other words, he would say, as we say, he was consubstantial with the Father. Arius was a kind of no-creed-but-the-Bible arguer or debater. He quoted texts such as Colossians 115, Jesus is the firstborn of creation. In other words, using that text to say that he was the supreme of God's creation. And he would argue that Even though Jesus wasn't eternally divine, however, he was created as a divine being. He was less than, still. He was subordinate to God. So boiling it down, the question was, was Jesus as much God as the Father was God, or was he less than God in some way? If you think about it in the context of the Greco-Roman culture in those times, it wasn't too difficult to think about gods in this type of way. There were lesser gods, there were greater gods, there were greater gods that created lesser gods, there was a whole pantheon of gods. So it wasn't difficult to the ancient mind to even worship Jesus in this way or to worship him as a lesser divine being. So central to the debate was this whole discussion around only begotten son. That was one of the key things that was debated and which we, in fact, read in the Nicene Creed. So what does that mean? Well, naturally, the only way we can think about a father-son relationship is in human terms. And that is, of course, how Arius thought about this terminology, only begotten. We think about it in the sense that a human father predates us, obviously. We're begotten by our father. So in the same way of thinking crept into Arian theology. And one can say, as you think about this debate over terminology like this, that it can be a bit esoteric. But consider the fact that you're facing this, as we said, every time you speak to a Mormon, every time you speak to a Jehovah's Witness. This is the issue, the core issue at hand. And so these words that we've just recited are by no means irrelevant or outdated. As it's been said before, heresy doesn't really ever go away, right? It just morphs from one form into another. So as we look back at these words in your hymnal again, just refer back to the Nicene Creed. We can only say a very, very brief word about them this evening, but take a look again at what it says. I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds. So you see it uses that word begotten. That's our word again. And contrary to what Arius was teaching, we say the original word was pointing to uniqueness, not to origin. So it's pointing to the relationship of Christ within the Trinity. which existed eternally. And again, we struggle with this concept because of our earthliness. We think about it through the framework of an earthly father-son relationship, and we cannot, in a sense, fathom the eternal father-son relationship that existed between the Father and the Son. But see what it says next. It says, God of God, Light of Light, So the creed is stacking up these phrases to try and explain the term begotten. begotten, not made. So that's a statement directly against Arius, who was claiming that Jesus was created. And not only is he not created, but he is of one substance with the Father. So this word substance is perhaps not best translated or best used in the 21st century, because when we think of substance, we kind of think of something physical. Whereas, of course, God is spiritual, so it's perhaps better translated essence. So of one essence with the Father. So whatever makes God, God, whatever belongs to the essence of deity, that is what Christ is. Or as the shorter catechism says, God is a spirit, infinite, eternal, unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth. Everything that encapsulates that definition of deity, that is Christ. That is what the Nicene Creed is trying to say. And then it says, being of one essence with the Father by whom all things were made. So again, emphasizing the fact that Christ is equal with God by virtue of the fact that he was directly involved in the creation of all things. Remember how Hebrews uses a similar argument there to argue by virtue of Christ's involvement in the creation that he is greater than the angels. And then the creed goes on. We won't have time to look at all of the other words, but just notice that it says, I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. But just note the emphasis on the co-equality of the Trinity, the Son equal with the Father, or the Spirit equal with the Father and with the Son. So it's interesting to note that what you have in the back of your hymnal It's called the Nicene Creed, but it's actually adapted. It's not the original Nicene Creed. What you have there is actually called the Niceno-Constantinopolitan. And it was revised, as I say, in the year 381 to further clarify and emphasize the role of the Holy Spirit. But it removed specific anathemas relevant to Arius. So you don't see those anathemas included in the back of your hymnal. If you want to make your toes curl a bit, you can read some of the ancient anathemas in many of these ancient creeds. But the one that was originally part of the Nicene Creed says this. As for those who say there was when he was not, and before being born he was not, and that he came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance, or is subject to alterational change, these the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes. So the point is that, again, that you're drawing this boundary. You're drawing a boundary between what is orthodox and what is not orthodox, between being a Christian and not being a Christian. And of course, as we said, how different things are today, where we live in a day where not many people want to stand on a timeless, absolute statement of truth, let alone pronounce anathemas against people who don't want to stand on a statement of truth like that. But I think there's sometimes a case for bold, unrelenting directness in the case of blatant heresy. Just to end with that, I think we don't stand on these truths because we believe them blindly. Sometimes I think, in fact, it can be difficult because we cannot rationalize the mystery of the Trinity. But we stand on these truths because we believe they're in the scriptures. They are there for us, given by inspiration of God, fundamental to everything that we believe. And to take away the eternal divinity of Christ is to empty every other doctrine of its glory as well. So in the end, I think we would be very much like every other religion if we do that, merely believing that Jesus is a created being. But no, of course, we believe that Christ is eternally existent with the Father. He has always been with the Father, and he is able to save to the uttermost as such. So on that we stand. So let me leave it there. That was a very brief overview of the Nicene Creed, but I hope it gives you a bit of background and appreciation for what was written, what was thrashed out through the centuries. And I think we owe a lot to our forebears who took a lot of time to distill these truths for us and hand them down to us in this day.