I am on board almost 100%, Benadam. I might quibble with the word “born” as a poor translation of the original Nicene formulation (“begotten” would be better, in my opinion), but this is a minor detail compared to the “consubstantial” (homoousion) designation. And it is crucial that we understand the term if our profession of faith is to be meaningful and valuable.
The first order of business is ascertaining what language came out of Nicaea. Because it collects 170 witnesses to the creed, the gold standard for recovery of the original Greek text is Dossetti’s Il Simbolo di Nicea e di Costantinopoli. Here is R.P.C. Hanson’s translation of it into English, found in The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God (1988):
“We believe in one God Father Almighty Maker of all things seen and unseen:
“And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten as only-begotten of the Father, that is of the substance (ousia) of the Father, God of God, Light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things came into existence, both things on heaven and things on earth.”
The next order of business is ascertaining what the drafters meant by homoousion. A good start would be Eusebius of Caeseria’s letter from Nicene to his congregation written just after the council ended, this translation taken from Documents Illustrative of the History of the Church, vol. II (Kidd, ed.,1923).
“Now this declaration of faith being propounded by them, we did not neglect to investigate the distinct sense of the expressions ‘of the substance of the Father, and consubstantial with the Father.’ Whereupon questions were put forth and answers, and the meaning of these terms was clearly defined; when it was generally admitted that ousias (of the essence or substance) simply implied that the Son is of the Father indeed, but does not subsist as a part of the Father. To this interpretation of the sacred doctrine which declares that the Son is of the Father, but is not apart of his substance, it seemed right to us to assent. We ourselves therefore concurred in this exposition; nor do we cavil at the word ‘homoousios’ having regard to peace, and fearing to lose a right understanding of the matter.
“That he is consubstantial with the Father then simply implies, that the Son of God has no resemblance to created things, but is in every respect like the Father only who begat him; and that he is of no other substance or essence but of the Father. To which doctrine, explained in this way, it appeared right to assent, especially since we knew that some eminent bishops and learned writers among the ancients have used the term ‘homoousios’ in their theological discourses concerning the nature of the Father and the Son."
I’m happy to discuss how those “ancients” used the term, Benadam. How deep into the weeds do you want to go with me?
