A Reply to Mr. Adam Pastor: A Vindication of the Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ

Under an old post, one Adam Pastor commented attacking the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, specifically in the point of the Deity of Jesus. I encourage you to read it here first if you want the full background to this reply, and on another blog where the issue came up again. Adam Pastor’s response contains 3 main points.

1) Jesus is god as in elohim (a given title), not Yahweh (a matter of essence) so
God is Father, Son is Lord
2) Echad = one (?)
3) Propitiation can be accomplished by a mere man

First, I might point out that Mr. Pastor has conceded that Jesus is identified as God by Thomas (John 20:28), but has insisted that, in short, “God doesn’t always mean God,” in that, Jesus is not God in the sense that the Father is God (ultimately identified by Mr. Pastor in the Hebrew name Yahweh). The premise of this is stating that the Scriptures identify Jesus as “elohim,” but that is a title given to Judges and Moses as God’s “ultimate Judge and Representative.” Such an interpretation is given to John 10:34-35, where Jesus uses the plural of God (θεοι). I agree that Jesus is bestowed with titles of Judge and being Representitive. In fact, Jesus is also identified as an “apostle…of our confession.” (Heb 3:1) Jesus is indeed the Representative, Judge and Apostle of God.

But is this all that Jesus is?

Mr. Pastor submits yes saying:

“There is ONE GOD, the Father.
The man Christ Jesus our Lord is in Heaven at the ONE GOD's right hand.
The Lord Jesus is the ONE GOD's right hand man so to speak!
ONE GOD and ONE man!

It's that simple. It is not a difficult teaching at all.”

Or more simply in the earlier reply:

"ONE GOD, the Father; &
ONE Man, the man Messiah Jesus our Lord!!
ONE GOD, ONE Man
ONE GOD, ONE Lord"

I submit no, this is not all that Jesus is on three grounds beyond the explicit identification of Jesus as God:

A) Jesus is identified as God in the same way the Father is
B) Jesus possess Divine Attributes
C) Jesus is to be Worshipped as God

A) Jesus is identified as God in the same way the Father is.
Mr. Pastor has questioned the use of Theos applied to Jesus as being used in a different sense than when applied to the Father. Though I do not accept that as valid, the Scriptures are so clear as to the deity of Jesus that we can establish such a diety even beyond the explicit identification of Jesus as God in passages such as John 20:28, Titus 2:13, etc. I must point out, however, one wonders how exactly Mr. Pastor would expect the authors of Scripture to express Jesus as God in the same way as the Father explicitly if they do not do so even by the identification of Christ as both Lord and God in John 20:28.

Mr. Pastor, however, has set up a dichotomy between Lord and God, God as an singular existential state and Lord (or even God) as a title like Moses stated above, I.e. judge and magistrate. According to him, God is the Father, and the Lord is Jesus. Does the Scripture do this? It seems to in 1 Cor 8:6 in using the appellation of God for the Father and Lord for Jesus:

“there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.”

But this begs a further question: What does it mean that Jesus is called Lord (Κύριος)?

Mr. Pastor has claimed that Jesus is only god in the sense of elohim. Yet, the additional title given to Jesus of Κύριος (Lord) is bestowed on the Hebrew names of Elohim, Adonai and Yahweh indiscriminately. One can see this in Psalms 16:2, where the text reads: “Yahweh, you are my adonai.” The Greek Septuagint (LXX) translates both of these as Lord (Κύριος): “Lord, you are my Lord.” Not only does the LXX do so, but the New Testament does as well, such as when Matthew 22:44 quotes Psalm 110:1. The Hebrew read: “Yahweh said to my adonai” and is translated into Greek in Matthew 22:44 as “The Lord (Κύριος) said to my Lord (κυριω, genitive of Κύριος).” Both uses contain the singular article.

Therefore, Mr Pastor’s statement of there being only “ONE GOD,[and] ONE Lord” as one God=Father, and one Lord=Son, is false then under his own method of reading, because the Father (identified by Mr. Pastor as Yahweh) is Lord and Jesus is Lord. There would then be two identified as Lord! This is important, because this affects one’s reading of 1 Cor 8:6 “there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ.” This is no proof text for Mr. Pastor when by Paul saying there is “one Lord Jesus Christ,” this is not to the exclusion of the Lordship of the Father (for the Father is called Lord too as displayed above). Within the same sentence, Paul cannot mean “there is one God the Father” to the exclusion of the diety of Christ. The two phrases of “one God the Father” and “one Lord Jesus Christ” are identifications, not theological statements of “Jesus only is Lord, and not the Father” or “The Father only is God and not Jesus.” One could just as easily say, there is one God the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ as there is one Lord the Father and one God Jesus Christ. The titles of God and Lord belong to both Jesus and the Father, without ceasing to be truly one God and one Lord in their shared Godhead. There is one God, and the Father is God and Jesus is God.

We see this identification not only of the Father as Lord, but of the Son with the same titles as the Father in Hebrews 1:10. There, the author says the Father speaks to the Son (Heb 1:8) words intended for Yahweh in Psalm 102. The preceding verses contains the title of Yahweh for God, then says the Father spoke to the Son the words directed to Yahweh. Jesus being called Lord in Heb 1:10 entails everything that the Father being called Lord entails, and addresses Jesus as Yahweh.

This also shows Mr. Pastor’s sarcastic statement “GOD is now in the presence of GOD for us!?! Pleassseee!” to be silly and childish, in that we may say “The Lord is in the presence of the Lord.” Such as is the reality we have seen in Matt 22:44 - “The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand.”

So we can see, the Scriptures do not share Mr. Pastor’s characterizations of the words God and Lord as exclusive to either the Father or the Son, but present them as applying to both the Father and the Son. And as said before, Thomas gives Jesus both titles unambiguously: “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28) So should we.

B) Jesus possesses Divine attributes
Mr Pastor’s presentation of John 1:1-4 is brief, which is appropriate as it destroys his argument. When in John 1:14 we are told the “Word became flesh,” Pastor says, “Its in verse 14 that GOD's [spoken] word became flesh resulting in Jesus Christ.” The Word is identified here, but it is not identified as spoken, he has read this in himself. The Word is identified as “God.” The “Word was God.” This time, singular as in the one God, not plural as in John 10’s exploration of elohim as applying to Moses. When God becomes flesh, when the Eternal takes on the temporal, yes, this results in Jesus in his full Person as God and as man.

Jesus is the Word of God, that is God. God became Flesh, and so is identified by John the Baptist in John 1:15. This shows us the shared divine attributes of Jesus and the Father since John the Baptist declares that Jesus pre-exists John the Baptist in John 1:15, 30, even though Jesus was born as man after John. This is the next point that leads us to acknowledge Jesus’ deity, namely that Jesus has the same divine attributes as the Father such as here eternality, or such as Omnipotence and Authority (Matt 28:18), Omnipresence (Matt 28:20), and Omniscience (John 1:48, Matt 11:47). The teaching of Scripture is that Jesus was first in the morphe of God, before becoming in the morphe of man (Phil 2). Jesus was God taking on flesh, not flesh being bestowed a title.

C) Jesus is worshipped as God
The Scriptures make clear commands that no one is to be worshiped except God. (Ps 115:1, Isa 42:8, Luke 4:8) Yet, we also see that the author of Hebrews wants to attack the idea that Jesus is just a high figure like an angel. In Heb 1:5-6, the author writes that the Father says of the Son: "Let all God's angels worship him." This passage is very reminiscent of Psalms 97:7: “All worshipers of images are put to shame, who make their boast in worthless idols; worship him, all you gods (elohim)!” Such a passage also brings in our previous point, namely that Christ’s status of elohim is higher than the judges or Moses, for Jesus is to be worshipped. Worship is only allowed for God, yet worship is commanded of Jesus, the Son. This is because the Son is God.


2) Mr. Pastor’s reflections on “echad” (or one) do not clarify. Two Persons are refered to as one flesh in Gen 2:24. Two Persons can therefore make up one reality. Jesus makes a similar connection in John 10:30, when he says “The Father and I are one.” The question is “one what?” The what is God. Two persons in Genesis 2:24 make up one flesh. Two Persons (Jesus and the Father) make up one God, without using a different sense of echad, one.

The language for Jesus’ status as Son is that he is begotten. When mentioned in John 3:16, the word is actually a combination of one, or only and begotten (μονογενής). The distinction should then be made between sons of God in the sense of the saints, and this different category for Jesus. This is the Father begetting a Son, not merely adopting as with God and men. Tell me, what is your father? When a father begets, is it something different from himself? Do pigs beget dogs, or do humans beget bananas? No, human begets human. God begets God. God the Father begets God the Son.


3) On propitiation by man I will respond later when I have a little more time.

Trinitarian Revelation?

Ok, I'll admit I've gone a little Trinity crazy lately. Yet, everything in theology seems to point back to Theology Proper (the doctrine of God). I recently had an assignment where I was told to "define God." I went back and forth on how to begin my definition. The Anglican 39 Articles starts with God as Trinity. Reformed Confessions tend to start with revelation in Scripture, then base a confession of God on special revelation in Scripture. Finally, I decided I must preface the definition with how I know God. But, instead of using the special revelation and general revelation divide, I decided to set forth my preface of revelation in Trinitarian Formula, as follows:

God reveals Himself to us by means of the Father's purposed works in creation,[i] His incarnate Son[ii] (Who is God,[iii] and human,[iv]) and His Scriptures,[v] written by men and the Holy Spirit.[vi] (Who is God.[vii]) God is our greatest good[viii] and highest pleasure,[ix] and does all things for His own Glory.[x]

Does this work? A general revelation in nature by the Father, a special revelation in flesh by the Son, and another special revelation by the Spirit in the Scriptures. Feedback welcome.

[i] Rom 1:20 – also called general revelation
[ii] Heb 1:2, 2 Cor 4:4. [Or the Word – John 1:1]
[iii] John 1:1-14, John 20:28.
[iv] John 1:14
[v] 2 Tim 3:16, [also called the word of God, the Son being the Word of God made flesh, and Scripture being the word of God written]
[vi] Heb 1:1
[vii] Acts 5:3-4, 2 Cor 3:17-18, Eph 1:3-14
[viii] or “exceedingly great reward” Gen 15:1 KJV
[ix] Ps 16:11
[x] Ps 79:9, Ps 106:6-8, Isa 43:7, Ezk 20:5-9, 13-14, 21-22.

Why Bother with Trinitarianism?

The most often heard denigration of the doctrine of the Trinity (and really for all Theology) is that it may be true, but it doesn’t matter. There’s no application in our daily lives.

There are actually three problems with this:

1) It is false, the doctrine of the Trinity does have application
2) A concern for application is good, but not when everything has to benefit me in areas separate from Who God is, then the problem in the question is not the “problem” but the questioner.
3) It is telling of our lack of concern for God, who is supposed to be the object of our desires. If we truly do not care Who God is, it means our love for God is lacking or absent.

Though I do believe the doctrine of the Trinity has application for our daily lives, I will leave those concerns for last; because of first priority should be the third point: our need to worship a God we know. Imagine telling your wife how thankful you are to her for giving birth to you. The idea is absurd. You should not thank your wife for the gift of your mother! Yet, in worship and prayer we often do this very thing thanking the Father for dying for us, or the Son for converting us.

WORSHIP

The question has arisen, “Who should we worship in the Trinity?” Should our praise be centered on the Father as Jesus told the woman at the well that the Father is seeking worshippers? (John 4:23) While the Father is often the object of our worship, both tradition and Scripture reveal that the other members of the Godhead also are to be worshipped. The Nicene Creed tells us the “Holy Spirit…with the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.” And in the book of Revelation 22:3, of Jesus it is said: “the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and his servants will worship Him.” Many of the hymns in [good] hymnbooks reflect this concern, with verses dedicated to the Father, then to the Son, then to the Spirit. If your hymnal does not do this, consider this one that does:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_Hymnal
http://www.gcp.org/products_b.asp?id=987663333&cat=A

PRAYER

This might also be extended to our prayer life. We often pray to the Father, ending with an appeal to the Son (in Jesus name). The Father is traditionally the object of our prayers in worship, often with us thanking the Father for His only-begotten Son and for the Spirit He sent. This formula originates in the very earliest liturgies of the church:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.html

While the Father may be object of the Lord’s Prayer, this should not restrict us to prayer only to the Father. However, we should be conscious of which Person we are praying to. Paul prays (speaks) directly to Christ in his conversion. Much of the worship of Christ in Revelation is in the form of prayer. Also, tradition has developed liturgical prayers with this very concern in mind. Puritans often had Trinitarian petitions in their prayers beginning with “O Father” or “O Son” depending on the object of that prayer or petition. For examples see: the Valley of Vision.

HUMAN IDENTITY

Scripture tells us that man is made in God’s Image. More than that, Scripture tells us that man is made up of two parts, male and female. Anyone concerned about the equality and diversity of gender should take notice here. This “Image of God” and the knowledge that God is Triune, informs our idea of the relationship between men and women. Scholar Bruce Waltke says as much about relationship in his commentary on Genesis writing, “Relationship is modeled after God who does not exist in isolation but is a trinity, surrounded by a heavenly court” When the model for marriage is given in Genesis 2:24, the man and woman are said to come together and become “one” or “echad.” This is the same word used in Deuteronomy 6:4 when God tells us He is “one.” This truth stands beside the truth of God’s diversity in the Persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The fact is that the Son has equal worth as the Father, even though the roles may differ. As we consider the difference of roles between men and women, the fact that the two (men and women) are one mankind, tells us that while we may differentiate the roles, if we denigrate the worth of women, a similar action to the denigration of Christ is occurring.

There are more implications for the doctrine of the Trinity, but for our purposes, and my time, I can only leave you with the exhortation to give closer thought and study to the doctrine of the Trinity. It has implication for our lives, but more importantly, it is the nature of the object that should be our greatest desire, because the Triune God is the highest good, our highest good and our greatest joy is found in Him.

Trinitarian work of Resurrection

Who raised Jesus from the dead? I read a post over at another blog that addressed this will just a few Biblical quotations, I thought I would rip it off and share:

God the Father: "Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead" Gal 1:1

Jesus the Son: "Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” John 2:19

The Holy Spirit: "But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you." Rom 8:11

Hypostasis: How do we speak of the individual Persons in the Trinity?

As Westerners, we are good at talking about the unity of God. Western thinkers, however, have always had trouble speaking about the three Persons of the Trinity distinctively. In fact, we may even find Eastern ways of describing the Trinity strange and even bordering on Polytheism/Tritheism. Below is a popular depiction of the Trinity, derived from a place few modern Christians would think to look for such an image, Genesis 18:1-8.

When we see three, we become uncomfortable. To be sure, there are those who call themselves Christians who deny the three. They are Unitarians and Oneness Pentecostals. Though if one does not confess the three-ness of God, the rest of the Christian traditions will warn you not only that you are out of sync with 2000 years of Christian understanding, but your very salvation may be in question as the Athanasian Creed ends with this warning:

"This is the catholic faith. One cannot be saved without believing this firmly and faithfully."

How do we think of these Persons individually? What is different when I think of the Father than the Son, or the Son than the Spirit, or the Spirit than the Father? To be sure, not only is this a potential problem, but one that occurs regularly in worship and the life of the Christian mind. A friend of mine told me a story before of being in a church during worship singing "You are my King." The song is explicitly about the death and resurrection of the Son. The second time through the song, the worship leader shouted out: "Now sing it to the Father!" My friend's jaw dropped and he internally screamed, "NO!" The Father did not die for our sins. The Father is not the "Sonfather" of Sabellius and Modalism. Yet, when Christians get mentally lazy they fall back into Modalism. The previous story illustrates one way in which we must distinguish the Persons of the Trinity.

THE DISTINCT ACTIONS OF THE PERSONS

As we looked at the Nicene Creed, we notice that we confess that the Father is "Maker of Heaven and Earth." The Father is identified as the Initiator of Creation (Gen 1:1, 1 Cor 8:6).

In describing the actions of the Son, we find in the creed a biblical and nearly unknown function of the Son: "by whom all things are made." We may think that the Early Church was speculating here, perhaps on some theory of the "Word" as Christ's title and God "spoke" and creation happened. But, when we look at 1 Cor 8:6, we see the same language. In fact, we see the Son's role in sustaining all creation as it is through the Son "through whom we exist." Second of the Son, we see his role in Redemption, as the one who "came down" and took our sins for us, became sin for us. This is not spoken of the Father or the Spirit, but of the Son distinctly.

The Holy Spirit we see given the credit for inpiration of the prophets in Acts 28:25. We also see the credit for conversion given to the Holy Spirit in 1 Cor 2:11-14.

Yet, this is not the only means by which we can speak distinctively of the Persons of the Trinity. More important than the Persons' relation to us (though their relation to us is more interesting to self-interested humans) is Their relationship to each other.

INTRATRINITARIAN RELATIONS

Within the creed, all the Persons are defined by their relation to the Father, largely due to the fact that this is how Scripture defines Their relations. Again, our favorite, theology-packed verse, tells us that the Son is begotten of Father (John 3:16), as we have explored what that meant in the previous post. Of the Spirit, we are told the Spirit proceeds from Father (John 15:26). One may ask what the difference between begotten and proceeding are in meaning. The answer most pleasing, that I have found, is the difference between εδωκεν and εκπορευεται. In other words, we don't really know. This leaves us with the Father, of Whom we may say that he is not begotten or proceeding.

The relations between the persons are deeper and worthy of much more space than I have given them. To see how the "Father loves the Son" and what that means has filled the works of Jonathan Edwards and was of more interest to the early church than the few vaporous thoughts we allow it today.

For more on the relationships and roles, my brother has recommended Bruce Ware. I have heard Ware speak and he is insightful and at the same time easy to follow, which should encourage us to look into his book: Father Son and Holy Spirit for more on this topic.

How can God be one, AND more than one?

This post is an outline for the material I taught a few weeks ago in a "mid-week" class I am team-teaching with Jay Bennett, a pastoral intern at my church (PCPC).


God is One

We see in Scripture that the most fundamental confession of Israel in the Old Testament is "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one." (Deut 6:4) The language and confession is repeated as the most basic declaration of faith in 1Kings 8:60 and Isa 45:5-6 .


Then, in the New Testament, we see three names, that seem to be distinct, called God.
1) God the Father such as in 1 Cor 1:3
2) Jesus (also called the Son or Word) in places such as John 20:28, or John 1:1-14
3) The Holy Spirit in places such as Acts 5:3-4


How is it then, that God is one, and these three are God? The Early Church stuggled with this question, with many answers being posited by men such as Arius, Apollonarius, Sabellius and Athanasius. How do we speak of these three? How do we speak of this one?

MODALISM

The first answer we will look at is the one given by a man named Sabellius. His answer was simple, logical and seemingly true to the Biblical witness. It goes like this:

God is one
The Father is God
The Son is God
Because the Father is the Son



Sabellius would even start calling this Person of God the "Sonfather." It sees one God, with different modes or manifestations. in fact, if we read John 10:30, where Jesus declares "I and the Father are one" this explanation seems to have biblical support. Modalism appealed to some in the Early Church because:

– Preserves equal worth of Son and Father
– Maintains the Fully Deity of the Son

If we are searching for model for this explanation, we may think of water (and in fact, we may shutter to think this may have been how God was explained to us). You see, the Modalist will say, Water can be solid, liquid or gas manifesting itself as an ice cube, a glass of water or steam. Yet, it is all the same water.

Tertullian voiced many of the objections of the other leaders in the church to this teaching, because while Modalism helped explain some things, it also:

– Denies distinction of Father and Son
– Denies the distinct Personhood of Son

The explanation is too simple. If the Son and Father are the same, why does the Son who was on earth, teach us to pray to the Father who is in heaven? Why does the Son pray to the Father in the Garden? How is it that the Son and Father have different roles and actions (John 5:22) if they are the same person?

No, the church could not accept the denial of the division between Son and Father. Other means must be solicited.

ARIANISM

Arius was a superb Biblical scholar. He used the technique taught in seminaries across the world: Let the New Testament aid in interpreting the Old Testament. Like a good evangelical, Arius placed his trust in his hermenutic. Finding that Paul had called Christ "the wisdom of God" in the New Testament, Arius knew he had been given the key to understanding the passage about wisdom in the Old Testament in Proverbs 8:12, 22. Here, wisdom personified declares: "The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works." This translation is based on the Greek translation of the Old Testament, and while the Hebrew has a meaning closer to "possessed me at the beginning of your works" still this translation persists today in the NIV and NET as alternative readings. Arius also pointed to the very word "begat" as proof that the Son was distinct, but a created being, divine and the greatest of God's creation, but not God.

Apolloniarius also had a theory of "Son as lesser being" teaching that Jesus was "adopted" at his baptism, when the Holy Spirit decended, as God's vehicle, Jesus then was a man who became God or divine. Yet, still not God as the Father is God.

What does it mean that the Son is Deity?

This is a difficult question, especially when facing the language of "begotten." Our favorite verse in America is John 3:16, containing the very word "begotten." Does this word mean? Very early in the history of the Church was the church father Irenaus. The apostle John had as a disciple Polycarp and Polycarp trained Irenaeus in the teaching of John. Irenaeus, even before Arius, taught what John meant by this word as communicating:

“The Father is God, and the Son is God, for whatever is begotten of God is God.”

If a human begets a son, it is human? Does it share the qualities that make the father human? Then if God begets a Son, then the Son is God in the same shared qualities of Deity. One of these qualities is Eternality. The Son himslef makes this claim as to himself in John 8:58. So also to say the Son is begotten of the Father and shares Eternality is to say there is no time in which the Son did not exist. There was never a time when the Son "was not." For the Son is I AM.

This understanding informs the Creed believed by the Church from 325AD to the present: The Nicean Creed in which it is confessed:

"We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made."

The bishop of Alexandria, Athanasius, continued this argument after the Council issued this creed. Athanasius tried to answer: Why is this even important? Athanasius related this back to our salvation. For:

– Man has debt
– Man has no means to pay this debt
– God has means to pay debt
– God has no debt to pay
– Must be paid by a God-man

The denial of the full deity or full humanity of Christ, leaves us dead in our sins and without hope for salvation.

HOW DO WE SPEAK OF GOD?

Can we have a model for God? Can we speak of him as exactly like a Father and Son? Can we speak of Him as water? Augustine wrestled with the same problem and asked this rhetorically:

How can we find a model in nature for a God outside of nature (supernatural)?

The answer: We cannot. Yet, we also long to understand the one-ness and three-ness of God. To this end, we have this model from Augustine:



On the one-ness of God, the Early Church tried to answer when Jesus said "I and the Father are one," Jesus is saying they are one...what?

The word they settled on was "Ousia." This is translated as Substance or Essence. This is defined as Traits of Deity that are shared by Father, Son and Spirit, such as
• Eternality
• Power
• Worth

As for the "Three-ness" of God, the word commonly used was that God is three in hypostasis. This is commonly translated as "Person." Basil simply defined hypostasis as “That which is spoken of distinctly." So:

Ousia - the common traits of God
Hypostasis - that which is spoken of distinctly

Another way to think of it is:

Ousia = What
Hypostasis = Who


We can see this simply defined in the Westminster Confession of our Church:

"In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and
eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of
none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the
Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son. "

And even more importantly in the Nicean Creed, the creed of our common Christianity, confessed by Reformed, Lutherans, Methodists, Anglicans, confessional Baptists, Catholics and Orthodox everywhere:


We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father [and the Son.] With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
If you are interested in more on this, my highest recommendation is for T.F. Torrence's "The Trinitarian Faith."



.