I am aware that it was most likely originally composed in Latin (this is why it is highly unlikely that St. Athanasius himself wrote it) but has anyone ever tried translating it into Koine Greek? If so, where would I be able to find the text?

In the Athanasian Creed, the three Persons are one God, and the ‘one God’ is the Trinity. The question is, how are the three Persons one God? If Father = Son = Spirit, that would be Modalism, where the Father, Son, and Spirit are three names for the same one Entity. So, I want to assume that Father, Son, and Spirit are not simply three names for the same Entity, but that there are differences between them. The Creed also says that the three Persons differ. For example, the Father begat the Son. So, while the Father has a Son, the Son does not have a Son. Such differences exclude Modalism. The following suggest that the Son and Spirit are part of the Father: - Firstly. the Creed says they are one undivided substance. (“nor dividing the Substance"). It also says that the Father is the Source and Origin of the Son and the Spirit. The ‘undivided substance’, therefore, is the substance of the Father. With the Son begotten and the Spirit proceeding, that Substance remains undivided. This means that the Son and Spirit are part of the Father’s Substance; the Son is part of the Father. - Secondly, that is also what Athanasius taught: > - “In the Father we have the Son: this is a summary of Athanasius’ theology.” (Hanson, p. 426) > - “The Son is in the Father ontologically.” (Hanson, p. 428) > - “Athanasius’ increasing clarity in treating the Son as intrinsic to the Father’s being” (Ayres, p. 113) > - “Athanasius’ argument speaks not of two realities engaged in a common activity, but develops his most basic sense that the Son is > intrinsic to the Father’s being.” (Ayres, p. 114) (Read More ) If the Athanasian Creed is supposed to reflect Athanasius’ theology, which I suspect it does, it would be fair to conclude that the Son and Spirit are part of the Father. - Thirdly, Athanasius was the norm of Western pro-Nicene theology and that theology relied heavily on Tertullian, who also said that the Son is part of the Father. > “The Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and > portion of the whole.” (In Against Praxeas 9, Tertullian)

One of the main points of debate between the Eastern and Western churches concerns the words "and the Son " in the Nicene Creed's description of the Holy Spirit. The so-called Athanasian Creed includes the words "and the Son" when describing the Holy Spirit. How does the Orthodox Church view the Athanasian Creed?

***Background:*** this particular question arose from considering the implied ground of the following question: [Does the Holy Spirit's procession from the Father and Son infringe on the co-equality of the Trinity?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/27091/does-the-holy-spirits-procession-from-the-father-and-son-infringe-on-the-co-equ) The author of the question assumes a Trinitarian position that is consistent with the 'Athanasian creed '*, with a view to ascertaining the legitimacy of Eastern Orthodox (doctrinal) objections to the 'filioque clause'. ***My question is:*** How (if at all) is the Eastern Orthodox understanding of the Trinity – which includes the doctrine of 'the Monarchy of the Father ' – consistent with the Athanasian creed? Particularly the following parts: > So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the catholic religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords. and >And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal. I'm most interested in an Eastern Orthodox perspective, but would also welcome an explanation of how 'co-equality' is reconcilable to other views of the Trinity that include 'economic subordinationism' or 'relational surbodinationism'. ---------- *Also known as *Quicumque vult* – I realise that it is not technically a creed (in the sense of being approved by an ecumenical council) and is almost certainly not authored by Athanasius of Alexandria, but it has come to be widely known by this moniker as it is judged to be wholely consistent with his Trinitarian-championing views to the extant of its being regarded – at least in the West – as a touchstone of Trinitarian doctrine.

The Athanasian Creed states: > Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. . . . He therefore that will be saved, let him thus think of the Trinity. > > Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . . This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved. I think the biblical basis is easy to establish for the idea that believing the incarnation is necessary for salvation, but what is the biblical basis for the idea that believing in the Trinity is necessary for salvation?

The Athanasian Creed was an expression of western Nicene-Chalcedonian belief, including the hypostatic union. But there is one sentence where the intention is not as obvious to me as the rest: > ... unus est Christus. Unus autem non conversione divinitatis in carnem, sed assumptione humanitatis in Deum. which the Book of Common Prayer translated as: > ... one Christ; One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh: but by taking of the Manhood into God; Which particular misunderstanding or heresy was this particular distinction aimed at? How is it read with John 1:14 "And the Word became flesh ..." or even the plain etymology of *incarnation*?

In Scripture and the early Creeds, "one God" is used primarily to refer to God the Father: > 1 Cor 8:6 (NIV): yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. > > Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381: We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. But the Athanasian Creed differs by using the phrase "one God" to refer to the whole of the godhead or Trinity: > And the catholic faith is this: that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; ... The Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God. They are not three Gods but one God. What explains this shift from thinking first of the Father as God and then to the Son and Spirit as co-equal with the Father, to describing the Trinity as the first and main way we should understand "one God"?

In the [Athanasian Creed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasian_Creed) , article 6, we read: > But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, *the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.* Does the wording of this article mean that there are 3 different and personal glories and majesties which are all *equal* as opposed to one majesty *shared* by the 3 Persons?

According to extant history the development of some of its main tenets ("The Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity" and "consubstantialism") clearly do not have their roots in the scriptures (and are refuted by Hebrews 1:3) so do they consider their use of Gnostic thought to be part of their "Sacred Tradition"?: >...The term ὁμοούσιος had been used before its adoption by the First Council of Nicaea. The Gnostics were the first to use the word ὁμοούσιος, while before the Gnostics there is no trace at all of its existence. The early church theologians were probably made aware of this concept, and thus of the doctrine of emanation, taught by the Gnostics. In Gnostic texts the word ὁμοούσιος is used with the following meanings: >>Identity of substance between generator and generated. Identity of substance between things generated of the same substance. Identity of substance between the partners of a syzygy. >For example, Basilides, the first known Gnostic thinker to use ὁμοούσιος in the first half of the 2nd century AD, speaks of a threefold sonship consubstantial with the god who is not. The Valentinian Gnostic Ptolemy claims in his letter to Flora that it is the nature of the good God to beget and bring forth only beings similar to, and consubstantial with, himself. The term ὁμοούσιος was already in current use by the 2nd-century Gnostics, and through their works it became known to the orthodox heresiologists, though this Gnostic use of the term had no reference to the specific relationship between Father and Son, as is the case in the Nicene Creed... In other words, was the Creed of "Athanasius" (though attribution is to a man of the 4th century AD doubtful as it rests on one man, Erasmus, from the middle ages based on style) developed from pagan ideas by the "Holy Ghost" or received by divine inspiration through a single inspired Catholic deacon?

I cannot locate where any but the most basic of the 44 assertions made in the Creed of Athanasius are also made in the canonical scriptures. Nor do I see any scriptural references provided within the Creed. And of course, even the word "Trinity" is completely absent from the Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic scriptures. Has anyone published a book, blog or what have you that contains: Assertion #1: 1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; Same assertion made in the canonical scriptures: Same Assertion #1: --- Assertion #2: Same assertion made in the canonical scriptures: --- Etc. Does such a seemingly important document exist? IMPORTANT CAVEAT: I'm NOT looking for something that has **inferences** from unrelated passages, only **explicit assertion s**. For example, I'm not looking to answer all 44 assertions with "See John 1:1"! It should be painfully obvious that one can prove *anything* via inference (and people do all the time). Thanks. Here are the assertions : Athanasian Creed 1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; 2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. 3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; 4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance. 5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. 6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. 7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. 8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. 9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible. 10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. 11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal. 12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible. 13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty. 14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty. 15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; 16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God. 17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord; 18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord. 19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; 20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords. 21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. 22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten. 23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. 24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits. 25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another. 26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal. 27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. 28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity. 29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. 30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man. 31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world. 32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. 33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood. 34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ. 35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God. 36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. 37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ; 38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead; 39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty; 40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. 41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies; 42. and shall give account of their own works. 43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. 44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.

It must be admitted by Protestants that only the most banal of the 44 assertions of the Creed of Athanasius appear in the pages of scripture and that its authority is Catholic tradition, justified with inferences rather than explicit assertions, and yet they claim "sola scriptura". Isn't it more accurate to say that they essentially have treated the Creed as if it were canonized and authoritative in itself? In other words, aren't they being disingenuous? Shouldn't they say, "sola scriptura plus the Creed of Athanasius"? Or rather, more broadly, "sola scriptura plus Catholic tradition"? VERY related post

Please see this question for why I think the Creed claims to be the declaration of the catholic church rather than merely clarifying the catholic position regarding the doctrine of "Trinity": The creed starts out like this: > Quicumque vult salvus esse, **ante omnia opus est**, ut teneat catholicam > fidem: Quam nisi quisque integram inviolatamque servaverit, absque > dubio in aeternum peribit. Fides autem catholica haec est: ut unum > Deum in Trinitate, et Trinitatem in unitate veneremur. Neque > confundentes personas, neque substantiam separantes.... > > Whosoever will be saved, **before all things** it is necessary that he > hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole > and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the > catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and > Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the > Essence... Athanasian Creed on Wikipedia Is the creed saying that the Trinity dogma should be the **first** thing that one is taught? Or that believing this creed in its entirety is **more important** than any other matter of faith than anything else? In particular are we to understand the creed as saying that "This is the body of truth of the catholic church and it is upon the belief and embrace of the contents of this creed that determine whether or not you will be saved."

I've seen a few examples online of people claiming that John Wesley objected to the "hell" clauses of the Athanasian Creed, such as on the [United Methodist Church website](http://www.umc.org/what-we-believe/why-do-we-say-creeds) : > United Methodists are not required to believe every word of the affirmations. Church founder, John Wesley himself did not agree with a historic (Athanasian) creed, because he disliked its emphasis on condemning people to hell. Similarly, [on a blog](http://www.andrewthompson.com/creeds/john-wesley-the-trinity-and-the-creeds/) : > Yet later in his life, Wesley became uncomfortable with the damnatory clauses of the Athanasian Creed, which have no parallel in the other two creeds. The clauses in question appear to be: > Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. > > they that have done evil, into everlasting fire ([WP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasian_Creed#Content)) A little bit of research has revealed one place where Wesley discussed the creed, saying: > I, for some time, scrupled subscribing to that creed; till I considered (1.) That these sentences only relate to *wilful*, not involuntary, unbelievers; to those who, having all the means of knowing the truth, nevertheless obstinately reject it: (2.) that they relate only to the *substance* of the doctrine there delivered; not the philosophical *illustrations* of it. ([Sermon 55, On the Trinity](http://www.umcmission.org/Find-Resources/John-Wesley-Sermons/Sermon-55-On-the-Trinity) ; emphasis in original) This seems to indicate that at some point in the past, he was unsure or unsatisfied with the wording of the creed, but later decided that it was acceptable. I find this weak evidence for the "did not agree" claim. Furthermore, this sermon was delivered in 1775, when Wesley was 71 years old, making me doubt the "later in his life" claim (though he did live another 16 years). My question, therefore, is: **did John Wesley explicitly reject any clause of the Athanasian Creed in any of his writings?** I am particularly interested in knowing if such a rejection exists in his writings between 1775 and his death in 1791.