The Athanasian Revolution: The Formation of Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed

Transcription

1 1 The Athanasian Revolution: The Formation of Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed 3) Sunday, June 26 I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God,... the only-begotten, born of the Father before all ages. Light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made,... Today we return to our series of discussions on the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. So far, we have discussed the first article (that is to say, I believe in one God, the Father Almighty... ) and have begun to discuss the second article ( I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ ). As we did the last time, let us begin today by recalling some of the ideas that we emphasized in our discussions. First of all, we spent much time speaking about the various titles that the Creed uses for Jesus, and noted how every one of them comes from the scriptures. For example, we spoke about the use of Lord to refer to God, and how this title reveals Jesus exalted status in a particular way. After discussing the significance of the name of Jesus and the Old Testament background for the title of Christ (or christos/messiah, that is to say, the anointed one ), we closed by talking about the importance of the title Son of God, which reveals the particular close relationship of Jesus to his Father. We noted that, although many Old Testament figures could be called sons of God, and although all Christians are sons (and daughters) of God through holy illumination in baptism, Jesus is the Son of God because of his unique intimate relationship with the Father, a relationship that is revealed especially at the moments of his baptism in the Jordan River and at his glorious Transfiguration on Mount Tabor. Jesus Christ is the Son of God not because the Father adopted him. Some early heretics called adoptionists, in fact, explicitly took up this idea. These quasi-christians claimed that the Son of God was only a special human being who had been empowered by God. They claimed that Jesus became Christ, but absolutely denied that he was, or could ever have been, God. The orthodox fathers, on the other hand, said that Jesus was unique because he was begotten of the Father before all ages. Jesus is the Son of God because of his essential oneness with the Father.

2 2 Having summarized these points, let us now continue with our discussion by moving on to the title the only-begotten. As we have just mentioned, the fathers considered the titles Son of God and the only-begotten to be inter-related. Then, what does this latter title mean in itself? Why did the fathers choose to include it in the Creed as well? To begin, we should make a distinction that the Creed does not make explicitly, but rather only implies. This distinction is between the Father who is unbegotten, and the Son who is begotten (in reference to the third article of the Creed, we might also mention the Spirit who proceeds). As we know, the council fathers included the clause only-begotten to describe the Son, but not unbegotten to describe the Father, even though the latter term was definitely part of the Christian tradition by this time. Why? For one reason, we might answer that the term is implied by calling the Son only-begotten, because we would ask begotten of whom, and the only logical answer would be of the Father. Even the Arians would have acknowledged as much. In fact, it is interesting to note that, in his exegesis of Proverbs 8:22-25 (with, as we remember, its use of the two verbs to create and to bring forth ) Arius did not dispute that the Father was the origin for the Son. He only debated at the nature of the relationship. In any event, if the Son is begotten of the Father, then the Father must be unbegotten in himself, in order that there would not be an infinite regress. This is one possibility. I think, however, that the more likely answer is the following: In the debates surrounding the formation of the Creed and the search for Christian orthodoxy, one of the major causes that led some groups into heresy was that they claimed to have knowledge of God. In other words, they claimed to know something definite and absolute about God s ousia, which (as we know from the prayers of the liturgy) the tradition of the church declares to be absolutely unknowable and incomprehensible. For example, in the years after the council of Nicaea, members of the so-called Eusebian alliance, which seemed to the orthodox

3 3 Christians to have an Arian theology, rejected the term homoousios (or of the same essence ) to describe the Son because they thought that the attribute of unbegotteness was something that was said of the divine ousia. In other words, they wanted to define God as unbegotten in his nature or essence. As we mentioned in an earlier talk, the Eunomians made the same error several decades later. They claimed that to be God meant to be unbegotten, and therefore they denied the divinity of the Son and Holy Spirit. In any event, the council fathers may have avoided using the term in the Creed so that they would not give any credence to the position of those heretics who identified God s ousia with unbegottenness. If this was the case, then we see here a good example of how the church makes select use of language in order to make her positions clear, even though the choice of the fathers to leave out certain terms in no way negates their value. Regardless of why the council fathers chose not to include the term, we might ask what it means. Why are unbegotten and begotten important at all? As we mentioned in our first talk, the problem in defining the articles of the Creed was how to reconcile the fact that God is one with the fact that God is three. The fathers, in other words, were trying to reconcile traditional monotheism with the fact that the Christian tradition says that it is not only the Father who is divine. The problem that arose, then, was how to define the relationships between the Father, the Son and (especially as the fourth century went on) the Holy Spirit, without slipping into heresy. Many, however, did fall into error in their attempts to define the relationships between the two (and, later, between the three). For example, Arius subordinated the Son to the Father, and claimed that the Father made the Son before the rest of creation. Arius opted for what he thought was pure monotheism. Instead, however, he developed a theology that would have deprived God of his personal and communal nature, and so would have also deprived man of salvation. As we mentioned in our first talk, to say that God is Father is to declare that God

4 4 is by nature relational. In other words, if there is a Father, then there must be a Son. In fact, the orthodox fathers were adamant in emphasizing that God was Father at the level of theology. They completely rejected the Arius idea that God became a Father when he begot the Son. Again, the problem was that Arius did not distinguish correctly between theology and economy, and so fell into grave theological heresy. But, [w]hen we call God a Father, we mean something higher than His relation to creatures, 1 as St. Athansius says in his treatise Contra Arianos (I 33). Before God creates at all,..., He is Father, and He creates through His Son. 2 In trying to sort out these seeming theological impossibilities, however, other early theologians fell into different errors. For example, in the first three centuries of Christianity there were various groups of modalist believers. Because of its prevalence in the Christian world, we should spend a little time now to discuss modalism, especially because many of the fathers were concerned that certain terms in the Creed could be construed as modalist. According to this heresy, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not really distinct from one another. They are, in other words, really the same exact God (and the same exact person, as we would say later in the fourth century). God is only distinguished in how he has acted within history. That is to say, God sometimes acted in history as the Father, but then at other times as the Son, and then at other times as the Holy Spirit. Modalists, therefore, fell into heresy because they said that God was not a Trinity of persons in his nature, but only appeared in three different modes of operation within salvation history. The modalists, like Arius, fell into error, at least in some ways, because they confused economy and theology. The orthodox fathers found fault with the modalists, however, and pointed out that God could not truly die on the cross (because God is 1 Florovsky, St. Athansius Concept of Creation, Florovsky, St. Athansius Concept of Creation, 52.

5 5 impassable), and that Christ would have been praying to himself in the garden of Gethsemane. Both of these positions, however, were simply untenable in orthodox Christianity. Nevertheless, this heresy was a major concern both at the council of Nicaea and in its aftermath. For example, members of the so-called Eusebian alliance were concerned that the term homoousios (or of the same essence ) was modalist. For this reason, they found it suspect and so did not want to use it. Why were they concerned? At the time, there was a serious problem with theological terminology. As we already know from our talks, the terminology used to discuss the Trinity is often confusing and requires one to develop a good sense of subtle nuance in order to keep ideas straight. Like we said, the controversies that led up to this council were not completely resolved until the triumph of orthodoxy in 843, more than 500 years after the end of Nicaea I. In any event, one of the big problems with the council was that the theological terminology was still not completely clear. In particular, the clarification of the concepts of hypostasis and ousia had not been made. What do we mean? According to the classical formula (which was coined by St. Augustine, even though many attribute it to the Greek Fathers), God is one ousia in three hypostaseis. He is, in other words, one nature (or essence or being), but three persons. God is absolutely one, but he is also absolutely three: He is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The terms ousia and hypostasis were set out clearly at the time of the council of Constantinople of 381, especially because of the work of St. Gregory of Nazianzus (called the Theologian) and St. Basil of Caesarea. At the time of Nicaea, however, much confusion still remained as to what these terms meant. For example, the anathemas that are included at the end of the Nicene Creed of 325 say the following: And those who say... that he [i.e., Jesus] came to be... either from another hypostasis or ousia,... these the catholic and apostolic church anathematizes. Please take careful note of the either... or included in this

6 6 anathema. Problematically, at the time the terms that we translate as nature and person today had not been distinguished. Therefore, the modalists were concerned that saying that the Son was homoousios (or of the same essence ) as the Father meant that one was claiming that they were the same, but only under different appearances (or modes). But, whereas some worried about this interpretation of the term, others rejected the formula three hypostaseis. In fact, this phrase was not fully accepted as the orthodox catholic doctrine until the synod of Alexandria in 362, because some bishops and theologians thought that the term meant that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were three separate ousiai, an idea that would have been utterly blasphemous because it seemingly bespoke tritheism. 3 It was only in 362, almost 40 years after the council of Nicaea, that Athanasius was finally able to bring together the anti-arian and anti-homoean theologians into a more unified body. At that time, the debate over the term homoousios (or of the same essence ) was raging strong. Orthodox fathers like Athanasius declared that the Son must be of the same essence of the Father. Members of another group, however, were called homoeousians because they believed that the Son was only like the Father in essence (in Greek, homoios kata tēn ousian). At this point, we should notice the truly subtle nature of these positions. In Greek, the words for of same essence and of like essence (homoousios and homoiousios) are only different because of one tiny iota (the Greek i ). Now, we should note here, as we have done before, that the heretics in this case were not necessarily ill-disposed to Christian truth or just evil. Rather, the heretical party of the homoeousians rejected the term because of a certain problem with language. Namely, the Nicene term homoousios ( of the same essence ) could also be understood, at least at that time, as the same as tautoousios (another Greek word that really means of the same essence ). The word tautoousios, however, could only be used to describe material things. In other words, this group of Christians rejected the 3 See Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Doctrines (New York, N.Y.: Harper & Row Publishers, Inc., 1960), 253.

7 7 Nicene word precisely because they were worried that using it would obscure the crucial distinction between God in his uncreated, spiritual ousia and material things. So, we should perhaps be careful not to condemn the followers of this thinking outright. In any event, in 362 at Alexandria Athanasius was able to win over a large party of the members of this faction to the orthodox Nicene position. As a result, the pro-nicene movement was strengthened. Tragically, however, the tide turned against Athansius in this same year, and Emperor Constantius forced him into his third exile into the desert of Egypt. The problem of terminology, however, continued elsewhere in Christendom. In fact, one of the reasons for the split of the church after the council of Chalcedon in 451 was because Christians who spoke Syriac did not have two terms to express these two ideas in the same way. For them, the senses both of ousia as well as hypostasis were captured in some way by the Syriac terms parsopa and qyan, but each was also somewhat different. In fact, it was not until the 1990s that this linguistic problem was resolved between the Catholic Church and the Church of the East (or Assyrian Church), when the two signed a joint declaration saying that they agreed in regard to the essence of the faith. At this point, let us return from our digression into the world of early heresies. We need to discuss all of these movements in our discussions, however, in order to keep in mind the complexity of the Trinitarian debates, the problems of which later spilled over into the Christological debates as well. We must look at them in order to remember how difficult it is to speak of God, even in regard to his economy within history. Looking at the history of the council at Nicaea, as well as the time before and after it, should humble us. In looking at the debates of the early Church, we should be struck by how many Christian were involved, and how many were willing to risk their livelihoods and lives in order to safeguard the truth about who God is, who Christ is, and what he has done in order to save us.

8 8 At this point then, let us return the text of the Creed, and continue with our discussion of only-begotten. Just like the title Son, so too the title only-begotten indicates a unique and exclusive relationship between the Father and the Son. Through baptism, we can say that in some sense all Christians are begotten of God. For this reason, St. John says in his first letter that whoever is born of God does not sin, but he who is begotten of God controls himself. 4 We are all begotten of God, because God has chosen to give us existence and life, and given us intimate communion with him through baptism and the holy Eucharist. The Son, however, is only-begotten (or monogenes in Greek). Various people tried to explain this scriptural term in different ways. Arius insisted that the Son was unique, since he was made as the first being of creation, before time existed. The adoptionists said that the man Jesus was uniquely chosen by God the Father to exercise divine authority. The orthodox fathers, on the other hand, insisted that the term only-begotten showed a special relationship of Father and Son within theology. That is to say, the term does not regard who Christ is in his economic work, but in his essential relationship to the Father. The use of the title only-begotten to describe the Son in this manner caused much dissension that remained for centuries after the council. This controversy in part led to the insertion into the Byzantine Eucharistic service of one of the most beautiful and theologically rich hymns of the liturgy; namely, the Hymn to the Only-begotten Son, which is commonly called by its Greek name monogenes. Let us continue today s discussion of the Creed by discussing this hymn. Why? We should look at it because it tells us the truths of the faith in prayer-form, just as the Creed tells the same truths in exposition-form. In this regard, we must keep in mind the clear connection in the Christian tradition between the lex orandi (that is to say, the prayer life of the church) and the lex credendi (that is, what the church believes). Between 4 1 John 5:18

9 9 the two, there is mutual influence and correcting. This rule, in fact, was the theological principle that guided many of the fathers. For example, in regard to the Arian controversy, some of the fathers attacked Arius and his followers because in their folly they said that Christ was not God, but yet prayed to him in the liturgy. The orthodox fathers argued that if we pray to Christ as to God, 5 then we should proclaim him to be truly God. In other words, they said that, if the Arians did not believe that Christ is God, then they were committing blasphemy in praying to him as a mere creature. The fathers were firm in declaring that the lex orandi should guide the church s lex credendi. We should examine this hymn, therefore, because it is the liturgical prayer complement to the Creed. What the Creed says in definition form, the monogenes hymn puts into our ears as a hymn of the church. In regard to the origin of the hymn, let us note briefly that it was probably inserted into the liturgy in or after 536 by the order of emperor Justinian, who is also credited as its author. Justinian wrote it in order to try and reconcile the division that existed in the church after the council of Chalcedon in In an event, let us look at the text and see how it reflects many of the theological truths that we have been discussing in regard to the Creed. ******** Only-begotten Son and Word of God, You are immortal,... You are one of the Holy Trinity, glorified with the Father and the Holy Spirit, save us. In the first place, we notice that the hymn puts the two titles Only-begotten Son and Word of God next to one another in apposition in the first clause. Of course, Word of God describes not the Son in his economic activity, but rather as he has existed since before all ages. 5 Cf. Pliny, Epistula More recently, some have attributed its authorship to a (quasi-) monophysite named Severus of Antioch, but most scholars continue to attribute its origin to Justinian because it expresses his theology so clearly. Some incorrectly attribute authorship to Athanasius, but the inclusion of such later formulae as God-bearer renders this attribution erroneous and achronistic.

10 10 From before all time, Christ was the Word of God through whom all things were made, 7 as we see reflected in the prologue of John s gospel especially. By placing the title Only-begotten Son next to this one, the hymn shows the reality of begetting of the Son: The Son was not begotten as the first of creatures (as Arius imagined in his vain delusion), nor was he adopted by God in a unique way (as the adoptionists thought in their heretical raging). Rather, the Son of God existed with the Father as the Word of God from before all ages. He was never apart from the Father, and (similarly) the Father was never apart from Him. Again, the title only-begotten does not describe Christ in his economic activity within salvation history, but rather describes his essential relationship to God the Father in the realm of theology. Having opened by addressing Christ, the hymn continues with the statement You are immortal, or more accurately being immortal (ἀθάνατος ὑπάρχων). Because of the nature of the Greek grammar, however, we could also translate the phrase as although You are immortal, which is the best when one considers that the next clause says that he willed for our salvation to be incarnate. In any event, the Greek text uses this word immortal to refer to Christ, which is not used in the Creed. More literally, we might also translate it as death-less. In the Christian tradition, this was a typical adjective used to describe God. As we mentioned earlier in our discussions, whereas those living in the Greek philosophical traditions thought that the gods had immortality, they did not consider the gods to be the source of eternal life in themselves. For Christians, on the other hand, God is fundamentally different because he does not have immortal life, but rather is immortal life. That is to say, God is the source of immortal life, and so life is a grace (charis) that he gives to us. For this reason, in the Creed we refer to the Holy Spirit as the Lord and giver of life. Therefore, when we use this word to refer to God, we are using it in an entirely new way from the pre-christian traditions. Therefore, like the titles 7 Cf. John 1:3

11 11 used in the first clause, the adjective immortal clearly points to the divinity of Christ. Furthermore, the term points to the fundamental distinction between God who is uncreated, and the rest of creation. Why? For the Fathers, God alone is life-giving because He alone is selfexistence. [To quote St. Athansius:] It was proper to no one else to replace the mortal with the immortal, except to one who is self-existence. 8 One can only give what he has, and so only a God who is immortal by nature can bestow immortality upon mortal human beings. We might note at this point that many of the fathers did not even consider the human soul to be immortal by nature, as some pagan philosophers did. Rather, they considered its immortality to be a gift from God (in other words, a grace). In regard to this adjective, we might also note that Jesus frequently says that we inherit eternal life by following him. Therefore, the following words of Christ, I am the resurrection and the life, and He who eats of My flesh [sic] and drinks of My Blood [sic] has eternal life, and I shall raise him up on the last day, and For the Father raises the dead and gives life, likewise the Son also gives life to whom He wishes, can only mean one thing: that Christ is God. 9 After calling Christ immortal, the hymn discusses the incarnation of Christ. We will discuss these themes in later talks. For now, let us look at the end of the hymn. You are one of the Holy Trinity, glorified with the Father and the Holy Spirit. This clause at the end is a clear statement of the Trinitarian nature of God: God is one, but he is also three. Interestingly, the ending of the hymn also demonstrates the principle that we just mentioned; namely, that the church s rule of prayer is also her rule of belief. In this case, the hymn indicates that the church s worship, in which she glorifies the Son together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, shows him to be one of the Trinity. At the end, the hymn closes with a command addressed to 8 Romanides, Ancestral Sin, Romanides, Ancestral Sin, 65.

12 12 Christ: [S]ave us. We should note that this verb is the only main verb in the entire hymn. That is to say, the entire hymn relies on this last line in regard to its grammar. This point should not be lost on us, because it again indicates the fact that the fathers spent much effort on clearly defining the articles of faith because who God is and who Christ is and what Christ as God did all determine our salvation. If God is not entirely other, then he could not have saved us. If Christ was not truly God, then there would be no redemption. Only because Christ is truly immortal, and only because he is one of the Trinity together with the Father and the Holy Spirit is it possible for us to cry out save us! After declaring that Jesus is the only-begotten, the Creed continues to describe him as born of the Father before all ages. We should note that this is one of the clauses that was changed when the Creed was redacted at the council of Constantinople in 381. The original Creed of 325 read thus: And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the one begotten from the Father, the only-begotten. In the revision, however, the fathers at the council of Constantinople, over which St. Gregory of Nazianzus and then later Nectarios of Constantiniple presided, explicitly added the phrase before all ages, doubtlessly in order to refute the Arian view. As we discussed at length in our last talk, a key debate between the orthodox Christians and the heretical Arians was how to interpret the verse of Psalm 109: From the womb before the dawn I begot you... Arius said that the Son was begotten by God before the rest of creation and before time itself, but still as part of creation. By including the clause before all ages, the fathers clearly declared their sentiment that the Psalm verse regards the begetting of the Son within the realm of theology. In order to understand why this is so, we must look at the next string of clauses in the Creed: Light from light, true God from true God. In making these two claims, the fathers of Nicaea wanted to emphasize that Jesus Christ

13 13 is true God because he shares the properties of God. Just as God the Father is the fountain of life, in whose light we see light, 10 so too the Son is Light from Light. Therefore, he must also be God. Just as with the rest of the terms used thus far, the use of light to speak about God is found in the scriptures quite frequently. For example, in his first letter St. John explicitly declares that God is light. 11 Similarly, in his gospel St. John declares that Jesus is the life, in which is the light of men that shines in the darkness and is not conquered. 12 In our tradition, we frequently speak about the light that shone forth from Christ on Mount Tabor, which showed his glory to his apostles as much as they could behold. 13 We should, however, be careful when speaking about this light. This light is not created. It is an uncreated grace, or working or operation of God (energeia), through the power of which the apostles who saw Christ came to be divinized. Therefore, we cannot objectify this light. It is not a thing, but rather brings us into a real relationship with God himself. As one scholar puts it: The grace which is experienced by those who see this light is not a thing, but a relationship. 14 In a similar manner, the essential identity of the Father and Son is shone by the fact that they both appear as light. For this reason, the church s hymns frequently speak about the relationship of the Father and the Son in terms of light. For example, the exapostilarion for the feast of the Ascension says the following: [Addressing the angels, it declares:] Open your gates and lift up your lintels, so that the King of glory may come in, for our King comes again to the Source of light. 15 Now, in speaking about the operations of God, we encounter at this point a very important idea for the fathers of the 10 Psalm John 1:5. 12 John 1: From the Troparion of the Transfiguration. 14 Russell, Doctrine of Deification, 305. He is referring to Triads III. i. 29 here. Cf. his comments on 306: Deification goes beyond natural perfection, for if it simply perfected the rational creature qua rational creature, the deified would not be born of God (Triad 3. I. 30).... [Deification] is a supernatural gift that transforms both mind and body, making the divine visible (my emphasis). For explanation of what Palamas means when he describes grace as a relationship, see John Meyendorff, A Study of Gregory Palamas (London: The Faith Press, 1964), Pentecostarion, pg. 295.

14 14 church: God s ousia is beyond all positive and negative descriptions, and unknowable in itself. We do, however, have some limited knowledge of God through his divine operations or workings (energeiai). Although God is three persons (hypostaseis), he is only one ousia and, importantly, he is also one in his acting and in his willing. God the Father does not act separately from the Son, nor the Son from Father, nor either of them from the Spirit. As Jesus says: I do nothing by my own authority. 16 This point is actually quite important. Although we can distinguish the three persons from one another (as three hypostaseis), God still wills and acts in a singular manner. Willing and acting, therefore, follow from nature, and not from person. This point will become the main contention of some heresies that arose around the time of St. Maximos the Confessor, namely, monothelitism and monergism. These were Christological heresies, both of which made the same basic point: They said that Christ only had one will and one operation (energeia), and so they denied the full humanity of Christ. This example once again shows how the problems that are in play at Nicaea took hundreds of years to resolve, and had a large influence on the Christological debates as well. Now, since we are speaking about the working or operation of God, we should note here that it is a doctrine of our Eastern Christian faith that God s ousia is distinct from his workings (energeiai), but they are not separate, because God remains ever one and indivisible. We need to make this distinction in order to speak properly about God s existence in himself, and his act of creation and interaction with things outside of himself (ad extra). For example, in regard to the Arian controversy we might note this crucial distinction: The Son s existence flows eternally from the very essence of the Father, but [t]he world s existence, on the contrary, is, as it were, external to this Divine essence. 17 Again, we are dealing here, in some way, with the 16 John 5:30 17 Florovsky, St. Athansius Concept of Creation, 53.

15 15 distinction between theology and economy. The Father begets the Son from his essence, that is, in the realm of theology, but Jesus human nature is created by the operation (energeia) and will of God in the economy. Furthermore, this distinction in God between his ousia and operations again emphasizes the radical difference between the uncreated nature of God and the creation. Essence and energy are not identified, but distinguished. This means that God creates whatever He wants, whenever He wants, without His essence being affected, because it remains unaffected and unchangeable. 18 From this discussion, we can summarize and say the following: God the Father reveals himself as light, and so does the Son. In both cases, the working or operation (energeia) of God is the same. Therefore, because God s operation must be singular, the Father and Son must both be God. The clause light from light, therefore, naturally leads us into the next, which describes Christ as true God from true God. In other words, if Jesus and God the Father are one in their divine working, then they must also be one in their divine essence, since operation follows from ousia. But, lest we fall into modalism and declare that the Son and Father are the same, the council fathers then immediately declare how they are different by declaring that Jesus is begotten. In other words, the only distinction between the Father and the Son is that the one is unbegotten and the other only-begotten. Many, however, fell into heresy on this point. For example, one sect called the monarchians became confused and said that the Father and Son are not two realities,... It was from the identity of the energies of the Father and Son that they drew the conclusion that their being and hypostasis were identical. 19 But [a]gainst the monarchians, the Church emphasizes the existence of hypostatic properties, which are not interchangeable. While in terms of energy, dominion, or kingdom, or glory, or all power and 18 Romanides, An Outline of Orthodox Patristic Dogmatics, Romanides, An Outline of Orthodox Patristic Dogmatics, 15. The italics are his, but the bolding is mine.

16 16 energies, there is an absolute identity between Father and Son, who have everything in common, fatherhood and sonship are incommunicable. 20 Having made this clear, the fathers next emphasize that the Son is not made. Once again, in declaring the Son begotten and not made, the council fathers are drawing a clear distinction between the Word of God as he exists in the bosom of God the Father from before all ages, and as he took on flesh and became man within time and space. They are again drawing a distinction between theology and economy. They are explicitly rejecting the Arian claim that the Son was made as the first-born of creation, and are instead saying that he was essentially begotten of God the Father. The Father, therefore, is the cause of the Son, since he is the origin for the divine ousia which the Son and the Spirit also share. Importantly, however, in the divine essence this causal relationship does not establish a subordination of the Son and the Spirit to the Father, since God in his ousia is entirely other from created being and, therefore, exists beyond the ways in which we can discuss created things. 20 Romanides, An Outline of Orthodox Patristic Dogmatics, 15.